S. 1552Senate108th Congress (2003-2005)In Committee

Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Judiciary Committee

July 31, 2003

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

July 31, 2003

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Judiciary Committee

July 31, 2003

Floor Debate

2 members

What members said about S. 1552 on the floor

2 Democrats

Sen. Russell D. FeingoldD-WI · Oct 22, 2003

October 26 will mark the second anniversary of the USA PATRIOT Act. I wish to speak today about the continuing and growing controversy surrounding that law, which was passed just 6 weeks after the…

October 26 will mark the second anniversary of the USA PATRIOT Act. I wish to speak today about the continuing and growing controversy surrounding that law, which was passed just 6 weeks after the September 11 terrorist attack.

I was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. As I said during the debate in the fall of 2001, the act contained many provisions that were necessary and appropriate to help protect our Nation against terrorism. I still believe that. But I also argue that the PATRIOT Act went too far; that it threatened our citizens' constitutional rights and liberties. That is why I could not support it and why I insisted on offering amendments to the bill on the floor.

Today, 2 years later, I still believe that as well. An increasing number of Americans have agreed and have expressed their concerns that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act threaten the rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution for over 200 years. The chorus of voices of doubt has grown so loud that the Bush administration has responded but not, I am sorry to say, by addressing these concerns in a constructive and open way. Rather, the administration has initiated what seems to be a public relations campaign in recent weeks to simply defend the PATRIOT Act in its entirety.

The Attorney General has gone on the road and on the Internet to extol the virtues of the law. Speaking before hand-picked audiences of law enforcement personnel, he has ridiculed and dismissed those who have raised concerns about the law. A few weeks ago he denounced ``the charges of the hysterics'' as ``castles in the air, built on misrepresentation, supported by unfounded fear, held aloft by hysteria.''

I think these words are unfortunate, and in its zeal to defend the act the administration appears unwilling to even acknowledge the legitimate concerns of many Americans; and it objects to commonsense proposals to protect privacy and civil liberties that would not in any way undermine the fight against terrorism--proposals such as my bill, the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act, and Senator Craig's bill, the SAFE Act, which I also strongly support, which would protect the constitutional rights of innocent citizens, while still allowing the FBI to do its job to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack.

As Members of Congress, we have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The President and the executive branch officials, of course, take this same oath. The burden is on the administration, which sought the powers included in the PATRIOT Act and which now seeks even more powers, to show that the current law and proposed new laws are consistent with the Constitution.

Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues how a commitment to individual rights became part of the founding principles of our Nation and enshrined as the Bill of Rights.

In 1787, in the halls of the State House of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, GEN George Washington, who led our Nation to victory during the Revolution, convened the Constitutional Convention. A number of great political figures were delegates to that convention. Joining Washington were other distinguished Americans such as James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Mason. Mason participated in the Convention, but he was concerned that the deliberations would result in a Constitution creating a central government with too much power over the States and individuals.

Mason, a patriotic American, who loved his newly found freedom from British rule, had reservations when he made the trip to Philadelphia. Prior to the Convention, he had written a bill of rights for the State Constitution of Virginia. He urged delegates to the Convention to include a bill of rights also in the national Constitution.

But a majority of delegates initially disagreed with Mason. When the draft of the Constitution was released, it failed to contain a bill of rights or any other explicit protection for the rights of individuals. Mason was bitterly disappointed.

Mason was concerned that, without any explicit protection for individual liberties, the Constitution would open the doors to tyranny by a central government. Why? Because our experience with British rule, in which the colonial power was able to infringe on individual rights, was still very much on his mind. So after the Constitutional Convention adjourned, Mason continued to push for a bill of rights.

During the next 2 years, as the Constitution made its way to the States for consideration and ratification, the American people came to agree with Mason, and he prevailed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was ``what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.''

Another statesman, Richard Henry Lee, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said provisions were needed to protect ``those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.''

Madison, who was initially opposed to including a bill of rights, was persuaded. An explicit protection for the rights of people or a bill of rights was needed in our Nation's governing document.

So, Mr. President, on September 25, 1789--almost exactly 214 years ago--the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. Ten of these amendments were ratified 2 years later by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the States. The remaining two amendments relating to compensation for Members of Congress and the number of constituents per Representative were not ratified at that time.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, of course, are what Americans now know as the Bill of Rights. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures.

The fifth amendment ensures that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The sixth amendment guarantees a right to counsel and a right to trial by jury to those charged with crimes.

During the debate on our Constitution, our Nation was at a critical juncture: Do we follow a path toward a highly centralized government with the potential for tyranny or do we follow a path toward a government with checks and balances, respect for States in a Federal system, and protections of individual rights and liberties?

The decisions made in the first days of the Republic have stood the test of time. They, of course, created the greatest democracy on Earth and a governmental structure that is most protective of individual freedom and liberty in history.

Today we stand at another critical crossroads. As our Nation faces new terrorist threats, we must respond to those threats without compromising the civil liberties that are the bedrock of our country. We must balance the legitimate needs of law enforcement against the privacy and freedom of all Americans, and that is not an easy task.

One thing I know, the solution is not simply to grant the Federal Government more and more power to conduct surveillance, eavesdrop, and collect information on law-abiding Americans.

The debate about the PATRIOT Act echoes the debate over two centuries ago in the halls of the statehouse in Philadelphia. Today, as then, we must take from our experience as a nation. We must remember the critical role the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights, has had in guiding our country through national crises, war, and armed conflicts at home and abroad, including the War of 1812, the Civil War, the two World Wars, and the cold war.

The Constitution has survived and flourished throughout our history, and respect for individual freedom and privacy has steadily advanced.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was, understandably, a great desire to give the administration the tools it said it needed to fight terrorism and prevent another terrorist

attack. But with time to study and reflect after enactment of the PATRIOT Act 2 years ago, many Americans have now paused and come to see a very real potential for abuse of power and infringement of privacy and civil liberties unleashed by this law.

There is strong and growing bipartisan support for changes to the act to protect our rights and liberties. I am confident that this right- left and moderate coalition of support will continue to grow and eventually occupy the center as more and more Americans learn what the law means.

The coalition includes Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, and the Free Congress Foundation, as well as the ACLU and the Open Society Policy Center.

At the State and local level, 3 States and over 180 cities and counties have enacted provisions and resolutions expressing concern with the PATRIOT Act. These States and communities represent over 25 million residents, and these localities are not just left-leaning college towns, such as Madison and Berkeley, but also right-leaning, libertarian regions of the country such as Flagstaff, AZ, Boise, ID, and the State of Alaska.

Here in Congress several legislative proposals have now been introduced proposing changes to the PATRIOT Act to protect privacy and civil liberties. During its consideration of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations legislation, the House adopted an amendment by Representative Otter to restrict the FBI's use of the ``sneak and peak'' power granted by the PATRIOT Act. The Otter amendment received overwhelming support, including 113 votes from Republican Members of the House.

In the Senate, Senator Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Wyden of Oregon have introduced a bill, S. 1552, proposing to modify a number of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. As I mentioned earlier, I have introduced the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act, S. 1507, and now there is the SAFE Act, S. 1709, which I also mentioned earlier. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Craig, Durbin, Crapo, Sununu, Wyden, and Bingaman in supporting this bill.

The SAFE Act does not repeal the PATRIOT Act. It simply proposes reasonable modifications to four particularly troubling PATRIOT Act provisions. These modifications will help to protect civil liberties and privacy by strengthening the role of judges in approving certain kinds of search and surveillance authority expanded by the PATRIOT Act.

Specifically, the SAFE Act would strengthen the role of the courts in approving delayed notice searches, requests for access to library, medical, and other records containing sensitive personal information, and roving wiretaps in FISA cases.

These are the issues I first raised in the fall of 2001 as the main reasons why I believe the PATRIOT Act was flawed and threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. For me and those few of my colleagues who supported my business records and roving wiretap amendments to the PATRIOT Act, it sure was a lonely feeling in October 2001. I must say, I did not imagine at that time that reasonable minds would begin to prevail so soon. Now 2 years later, we have a strong bipartisan effort to change these provisions, and I am pleased to see that. I look forward to working with Senator Craig and my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get the bill passed.

I am still very troubled by the administration's response to legislative efforts, such as those I just mentioned, and to the public's outcry to repeal or modify the PATRIOT Act. The administration has launched an effort to defend the PATRIOT Act, but its defense only tells the American people half the story at best. Its PR campaign eagerly describes the new powers the PATRIOT Act gives to law enforcement, but it doesn't say anything about what the law potentially takes away from the American people: our liberty and our privacy.

Perhaps most disturbing, the administration's campaign fails to seriously address section 215, which I have long seen as the act's most troubling provision. Both my bill and the Craig bill contain the same proposal to modify this provision. Section 215 allows the FBI access to the private details of the lives of law-abiding Americans--which books we have checked out from the library, what our medical records reveal, and what charges we have made on our credit cards. Americans reasonably expect the details of their private lives, from what they read to what drugs they have been prescribed, to remain just that--private. The PATRIOT Act undermines that expectation.

Under section 215, all the FBI has to do is assert that the records are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. As long as the FBI makes such an assertion--and it is just an assertion--the secret foreign intelligence court is required to issue an order allowing access to those records. The courts cannot review the merits of the subpoena request.

Both my bill and the Craig bill would simply require the FBI to set forth specific facts showing that the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy. Thus, the Government could not ask, say, Amazon.com or e-Bay to turn over the records of law-abiding customers. It could, however, obtain records of those customers who are actually suspected terrorists. My bill would allow the FBI to follow up on legitimate leads by also respecting the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.

The administration has recently asserted that the criticism of section 215 is baseless because this section has not yet been used since it was enacted. The administration says that librarians concerned about access to Americans' reading records are hysterics and have been duped by civil rights advocates and Members of Congress.

I am disappointed that the administration would use such rhetoric. No one has been duped, and the people concerned about their privacy are not in hysterics. They are simply worried, as I am, about the Government possessing a power that has the potential to intrude on their civil liberties, particularly since the statute itself prohibits a library, bookseller, or anyone else who has been served a subpoena from making that information public.

What I said before the PATRIOT Act was passed, and continue to maintain now, is that section 215 presents the potential for abuse.

I will say it again, because I cannot emphasize this enough, section 215 presents the potential for abuse. Regardless of whether the provision has not yet been used, that potential still exists, and the public has a reason to be concerned. No amount of ridicule or spin can change that.

The recent disclosure that section 215 has never been used does not address the concern that it could be used in a way that would violate the privacy of innocent Americans. But it does raise another question: If the section has never been used in the 2 years since the bill was passed, the 2 years immediately following the September 11 attacks, when concern over terrorism has been at its peak, including numerous periods of orange alert status, then whey is this provision even on the books? Or at the least, what possible objection could there be to modifying it so that the potential for abuse is eliminated?

Both my bill and the Craig bill would protect the rights of law- abiding citizens by limiting the FBI's access only to information that pertains to suspected terrorists or spies. Our legislation recognizes the legitimate uses of section 215 and would not interfere with the use of the provision to investigate and prevent terrorism.

I urge the administration to open an honest dialogue with Congress and the American people to address the PATRIOT Act's specific problems instead of continuing to try to sell it. We do not need a government that forces its authority on the people and rejects and ridicules legitimate, heartfelt, and principled criticism of its actions and its laws. That is what our Founding Fathers strived to ensure would never happen again. The Federal Government should be responsive and accountable to the people. But most importantly, the Federal Government should respect and uphold the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the administration has not only failed to engage in an honest dialogue about the PATRIOT Act, but it now proposes that Congress grant to it even more power. The American people have expressed very legitimate and sincerely-held concerns

about the PATRIOT Act. The administration should answer those concerns honestly and forthrightly before seeking more power.

The administration has announced its support for three legislative proposals to expand executive branch power and diminish the role of judges, an essential part of our Nation's system of checks and balances. One proposal grants the Attorney General significant power to compel people to testify or the production of documents, all without prior court approval. A second proposal broadens the presumption of pretrial detention to cases that may not even involve terrorism. Finally, the third proposal expands the Federal death penalty.

Criticism of the PATRIOT Act appears to have had the effect of influencing the administration's strategy to secure this new power, but not the substance of its effort. Rather than proposing a single bill with various provisions to expand the PATRIOT Act, the administration instead appears to have given its blessing to many little ``PATRIOT IIs.''

The administration is apparently reluctant to allow these proposals to be linked to the PATRIOT Act. In fact, the Justice Department has even tried to suggest that they are unrelated. No one is fooled, however, least of all the American people. The fact is that these proposals did appear in the draft ``Patriot II'' leaked earlier this year and entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act.

``Patriot II,'' whether contained in one bill or a series of bills, is the wrong response at the wrong time. An increasing number of Americans want to know exactly how this administration is using the powers it already has and want the PATRIOT Act to be amended to protect privacy and civil liberties.

The burden is on the administration to show Congress and the American people why current law is inadequate, why it needs even more power, and how the powers it already has and the new powers it seeks are consistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That would be the patriotic thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Sen. Harry ReidD-NV · Oct 22, 2003

Would the Chair announce, under the additional time we have until 11:30, how much time the minority has remaining? How about if we add in the time for the second hour? Is it 32 minutes or something…

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF

Introduced in SenateIssued July 31, 2003

        [Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1552 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

1st Session
S. 1552

To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to strengthen protections of civil liberties
in the exercise of the foreign intelligence surveillance authorities
under Federal law, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 31 (legislative day, July 21), 2003

Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to strengthen protections of civil liberties
in the exercise of the foreign intelligence surveillance authorities
under Federal law, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the Rights of Individuals
Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO DELAY NOTICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by
striking ``a criminal offense in violation of the laws
of the United States'' and inserting ``an act dangerous
to human life that constitutes a Federal crime of
terrorism (as that term is defined in section
2332b(g)(5) of this title)'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``may have an
adverse result (as defined in section 2705)'' and
inserting ``will endanger the life or physical safety
of an individual, result in flight from prosecution, or
result in the destruction of or tampering with the
evidence sought under the warrant''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a reasonable
period'' and all that follows and inserting ``seven
calendar days, which period, upon application of the
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an
Associate Attorney General, may thereafter be extended
by the court for additional periods of up to seven
calendar days each if the court finds, for each
application, reasonable cause to believe that notice of
the execution of the warrant will endanger the life or
physical safety of an individual.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Reports.--(1) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General
shall transmit to Congress and make public a report concerning all
requests for delays of notice, and for extensions of delays of notice,
with respect to warrants under subsection (b).
``(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect
to the preceding six-month period--
``(A) the total number of requests for delays of notice
with respect to warrants under subsection (b);
``(B) the total number of such requests granted or denied;
and
``(C) for each request for delayed notice that was granted,
the total number of applications for extensions of the delay of
notice and the total number of such extensions granted or
denied.''.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) Modification.--Section 2331(5) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that
constitute a Federal crime of terrorism (as that term
is defined in section 2332b(g)(5) of this title);
and''; and
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Construction.--Nothing in section 2331 of title 18, United
States Code, shall be construed to prohibit a State from enforcing the
laws of the State relating to terrorism.

SEC. 4. ENHANCEMENT OF PROTECTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND MATERIALS
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM ACCESS FOR FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE PURPOSES.

(a) Access Under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of  1978.--
Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1861) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(2) and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) shall include a statement of the facts and
circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the
applicant's belief that the person to whom the records pertain
is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``finds'' and all
that follows and inserting ``finds--
``(A)(i) unless clause (ii) applies, that on the basis of
the facts submitted by the applicant there is reason to believe
that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power; or
``(ii) in the case of medical records or library records
and other records involving the purchase or rental of books,
video, or music, or the accessing of legal and publicly
available content through the Internet, that on the basis of
the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to
believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
``(B) that the application meets the other requirements of
this section.''.
(b) Counterintelligence Access to Telephone Toll and Transactional
Records.--Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A wire or
electronic communication service provider''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(2) A library shall not be treated as a wire or electronic
communication service provider for purposes of this section.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Library Defined.--In this section, the term `library' means a
library (as that term is defined in section 213(2) of the Library
Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(2)) whose services include
access to the Internet, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, or
other similar forms of communication in print or digitally to patrons
for their use, review, examination, or circulation.''.

SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF JOHN DOE ROVING WIRETAPS UNDER FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

Section 105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(50 U.S.C. 1805(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, however, if the identity
is unknown, a facility or place shall be specified'';
and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, however, if the facility
or place is unknown, the identity of the target shall
be specified''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, and, in cases where the facility or place at
which the surveillance is to be directed is not known at the
time the order is issued, that the surveillance be conducted
only when the presence of the target at a particular facility
or place has been ascertained by the person conducting the
surveillance''.

SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE
DEVICES FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PURPOSES.

(a) Application for Order.--Section 3122(b)(2) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) a statement by the applicant of specific and
articulable facts that indicate that a crime has been, is
being, or will be committed, and that information likely to be
obtained by such installation and use is relevant to the
investigation of that crime.''.
(b) Issuance of Order.--(1) Section 3123(a)(1) of that title is
amended by striking ``the attorney for the Government has certified to
the court that the information likely to be obtained by such
installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation.'' and inserting ``there exist specific and articulable
facts that reasonably indicate that a crime has been, is being, or will
be committed, and that information likely to be obtained by such
installation and use is relevant to the investigation of that crime.''.
(2) Section 3123(a)(2) of that title is amended by striking ``the
State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the
court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation
and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.'' and
inserting ``there exist specific and articulable facts that reasonably
indicate that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, and
that information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is
relevant to the investigation of that crime.''.
(c) Clarification of Internet Content Accessible.--Section 3121(c)
of that title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A government agency'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the contents of Internet
electronic communications include the subject line of such
communications and any portion of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
other than the server name and top level domain.''.

SEC. 7. MORATORIUM ON DATA-MINING.

(a) Moratorium.--No officer or employee of any department or agency
of the Federal Government may take any action to implement or carry out
any data-mining program or activity except pursuant to a law
specifically authorizing such data-mining program or activity by such
department or agency.
(b) Report of Development or Use of Data-Mining.--(1) The head of
each department or agency of the Federal Government that engages or
plans to engage in any activities relating to the development or use of
a data-mining program or activity shall submit to Congress, and make
available to the public, a report on such activities.
(2) A report under paragraph (1) shall include, for each activity
relating to the development or use of a data-mining program or
activity, information as follows:
(A) A thorough description of the data-mining program or
activity concerned.
(B) A thorough discussion of the plans for the use of the
data-mining program or activity, or of any technology relating
to such program or activity.
(C) A thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, and
guidelines that are to be applied in the use of such data-
mining program or activity, or of any technology relating to
such program or activity, for data-mining in order to--
(i) protect the privacy rights of individuals; and
(ii) ensure that only accurate, complete, and
timely information is collected.
(3)(A) In the case of a department or agency of the Federal
Government that is engaged in activities described in paragraph (1) as
of the date of the enactment of this Act, the report under paragraph
(1) on such activities shall be submitted not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) In the case of a department or agency of the Federal Government
that plans to commence activities described in paragraph (1) after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the report under paragraph (1) on
such activities shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the
department or agency commences planning for such activities.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``data-mining'' means a query or search of one
or more electronic databases by or at the behest of a
department or agency of the Federal Government in which--
(A) at least one of the databases is obtained from
or remains under the control of a non-Federal entity,
or the information in at least one database was
acquired initially by another department or agency of
the Federal Government for purposes other than
intelligence or law enforcement;
(B) the search does not use the personal
identifiers of a particular individual to acquire
information concerning that individual; and
(C) the department or agency is conducting the
search in an effort to find evidence of a pattern
indicating possible terrorist or other criminal
activity.
(2)(A) The term ``database'' means a collection or grouping
of information about individuals that is held in electronic
form and that contains personally identifiable information
about individuals, such as names, or identifying numbers,
symbols or other identifying particulars assigned to
individuals, such as fingerprints, voice prints, or
photographs.
(B) The term does not include telephone directories or
information publicly available over the Internet without
payment of a fee.

SEC. 8. PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT UNDER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

(a) Public Reporting Requirement.--(1) The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq.) is amended--
(A) by redesignating title VI and section 601 as title VII
and section 701, respectively; and
(B) by inserting after title V the following new title:

``TITLE VI--PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT

``public report of the attorney general

``Sec. 601. In addition to the reports required by sections 107,
108, 306, 406, and 502 in April of each year, the Attorney General
shall issue each year a public report setting forth with respect to the
preceding calendar year--
``(1) the total number of orders and extensions of orders
under this Act that were granted, modified, or denied,
including those approving--
``(A) electronic surveillance under section 105;
``(B) physical searches under section 304;
``(C) pen registers or trap and trace devices under
section 402; and
``(D) access to records under section 501;
``(2)(A) the total number of applications made for orders
approving requests for the production of tangible things under
section 501 to be served on public media; and
``(B) the total number of such orders either granted,
modified, or denied;
``(3) the number of United States persons targeted for
orders under this Act, including those targeted for--
``(A) electronic surveillance under section 105;
``(B) physical searches under section 304;
``(C) pen registers or trap and trace devices under
section 402; and
``(D) access to records under section 501;
``(4) the number of times that the Attorney General
authorized that information obtained under the provisions of
law referred to in paragraph (3), or any information derived
therefrom, be used in a criminal proceeding;
``(5) the number of times that a statement was completed
pursuant to section 106(b), 305(c), or 405(b) to accompany a
disclosure of information acquired under this Act for law
enforcement purposes; and
``(6) in a manner consistent with the protection of the
national security of the United States--
``(A) the portions of the documents and
applications filed with the court established under
section 103 that include significant construction or
interpretation of the provisions of this Act, or any
provision of the United States Constitution, not
including the facts of any particular matter, which may
be redacted;
``(B) the portions of the opinions and orders of
the court established under section 103 that include
significant construction or interpretation of the
provisions of this Act, or any provision of the United
States Constitution, not including the facts of any
particular matter, which may be redacted; and
``(C) in the first report submitted under this
section, the matters specified in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) for all documents and applications filed with the
court established under section 103, and all otherwise
unpublished opinions and orders of the court, for the
four years before the preceding calendar year in
addition to that year.''.
(2) The table of contents for that Act is amended by striking the
items relating to title VI and section 601 and inserting the following:

``TITLE VI--PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT

``Sec. 601. Public report of the Attorney General.
``TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE

``Sec. 701. Effective date.''.
(b) Modification of Reporting Requirements to Congress.--(1)
Section 107 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1807) is amended--
(A) by redesignating clause (a) paragraph (1);
(B) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end; and
(C) by striking clause (b) and inserting the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) the total number of initial orders for electronic
surveillance either granted, modified, or denied;
``(3) the total number of extensions of orders for
electronic surveillance either granted, modified, or denied;
and
``(4) the total number of United States persons to whom
such orders or extensions that were granted pertain.''.
(2) Section 406(b) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1846(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) the total number of United States persons to whom
such orders that were granted or modified pertain.''.
(3) Section 502(b) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1862(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) the total number of United States persons to whom
such orders that were granted or modified pertain, or in cases
where the order does not name a specific person whose records
are being sought, an estimate of the total number of persons to
whom records being sought pertain.''.

SEC. 9. APPLICATION OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES TO EVIDENCE USED IN COURT
PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Electronic Surveillance.--Section 106(f) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806(f)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or an adversary hearing''; and
(B) by striking ``and ex parte''; and
(2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following new sentence: ``In making this determination, the
court shall, if otherwise discoverable, disclose to the
aggrieved person, under the procedures and standards provided
in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.),
portions of the application, order, or other materials relating
to the surveillance unless the court finds that such disclosure
would not assist in determining any legal or factual issue
pertinent to the case.''.
(b) Physical Searches.--Section 305(g) of that Act (50 U.S.C.
1825(g)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or an adversary hearing''; and
(B) by striking ``and ex parte''; and
(2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following new sentence: ``In making this determination, the
court shall, if otherwise discoverable, disclose to the
aggrieved person, under the procedures and standards provided
in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.),
portions of the application, order, or other materials relating
to the physical search, or may require the Attorney General to
provide to the aggrieved person a summary of such materials,
unless the court finds that such disclosure would not assist in
determining any legal or factual issue pertinent to the
case.''.
(c) Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 405(f) of
that Act (50 U.S.C. 1845(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following new paragraph (2):
``(2) Unless the court finds that such disclosure would not assist
in determining any legal or factual issue pertinent to the case, the
court shall, if otherwise discoverable, disclose to the aggrieved
person, under the procedures and standards provided in the Classified
Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.), portions of the
application, order, or other materials relating to the use of pen
register or trap and trace device, as the case may be, or evidence or
information obtained or derived from the use of pen register or trap
and trace device, as the case may be.''.
(d) Disclosure of Certain Business Records.--(1) Title V of that
Act (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 502 as section 503; and
(B) by inserting after section 501 the following:

``disclosure of certain business records and items governed by the
classified information procedures act

``Sec. 502. Any disclosure of applications, information, or items
submitted or acquired pursuant to an order issued under section 501, if
such information is otherwise discoverable, shall be conducted under
the procedures and standards provided in the Classified Information
Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.).''.
(2) The table of contents for that Act is amended by striking the
item relating to section 502 and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 502. Disclosure of certain business records and items governed
by the Classified Information Procedures
Act.
``Sec. 503. Congressional oversight.''.

SEC. 10. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and 303(a)(7)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B), 1823(a)(7)(B)) are
each amended by striking ``a significant purpose'' and inserting ``the
primary purpose''.

SEC. 11. DISCLOSURE OF EDUCATION RECORDS.

(a) Applications for Orders.--Section 444(j)(2)(A) of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(j)(2)(A)) and section
408(c)(2)(A) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20
U.S.C. 9573(e)(2)(A)) are each amended by striking ``certify that there
are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe'' and
inserting ``set forth specific and articulable facts indicating''.
(b) Issuance of Orders.--Section 444(j)(2)(B) of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(j)(2)(B)) and section
408(c)(2)(B) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20
U.S.C. 9573(e)(2)(B)) are each amended by striking ``the application
for the order includes the certification described in subparagraph
(A)'' and inserting ``there are specific and articulable facts giving
reason to believe that the education records are likely to contain
information described in paragraph (1)(A)''.
<all>