Gov: Judiciary Committee Hearing

_________________________________________________________________________

Content Objective:

Understand the process by which laws are developed at the federal level, and key differences between how laws are developed at the federal level and state level.

Language Objectives:

• Understand, learn, and use new vocabulary that is introduced and taught directly through informational text and direct instruction.
• Identify and/or summarize main ideas, facts, supporting details, and opinions in an informational and/or practical selection.
• Read and synthesize information found in various parts of charts, tables, or diagrams to reach supported conclusions.

Learning Target:

Students will explain the formal process of how a bill travels through Congress and factors that influence the lawmaking process.

_________________________________________________________________________

Legislative Process in Action

This activity introduces students to the central action of representative government by engaging them in analyzing a model sequence of lawmaking. In practice, the legislative process can be abbreviated or more complex; this lesson introduces the 10 elemental steps that demonstrate how Congress acts. Before it becomes law, a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. These distinct institutions have different rules and unique traditions which slightly alter the process. However, the steps described here are common to both chambers:

1. Desire for legislation is voiced
2. Bill is introduced and referred to committee
3. Committee collects testimony and information

Committee Hearings

A committee’s work on a proposed bill can be divided into three phases. At each point, the legislation can move forward or die.

Phase 1: Hearings. The first phase usually begins with a legislative hearing. A legislative hearing is a meeting of lawmakers to hear testimony and gather information on a proposed piece of legislation, in front of the subcommittee to which the bill was assigned by the committee chair. The purpose of the hearing is to listen to testimonies and gather information from individuals who are interested in or have expertise to share about the proposed legislation.

The people called on to testify may include the bill’s sponsors, public officials, lobbyists, and private citizens. To shine the media spotlight on a bill, a chair may even invite a movie star to testify. “Quite candidly,” Senator Arlen Specter admitted, “when Hollywood speaks, the world listens. Sometimes when Washington speaks, the world snoozes.”

Hearings can be fairly short, or they can drag on for days. Subcommittee chairs, for the most part, control the selection and scheduling of witnesses. If they favor a bill, they can move the hearing along. If they oppose a bill, they kill it by scheduling hearings that never seem to end.

Once a bill is sent to a committee, the chair decides what to do with it. One option is simply to ignore it. Another option is to hold hearings on the bill, either in the full committee or in one of its subcommittees.

Subcommittees are smaller groups of lawmakers that focus on particular areas within the full committee’s jurisdiction. The committee chair can refer a bill either to a subcommittee that will give it a favorable reception or to one that will not. This is another source of a chair’s considerable power.

Phase 2: Markup. After the hearings end, subcommittee members gather to determine a bill’s final language. This meeting is known as a markup session A markup session is a meeting of a legislative committee at which members amend, or “mark up,” a bill before putting it to a vote, because this is when members mark up, or amend, the bill. At least one ­third of the subcommittee’s members must be present at a markup session to make up a quorum.

The chair starts a markup session by noting the bill’s title and opening it up to amendment. Amendment procedures vary by committee, but typically any change in a bill must be approved by a majority of those present. The committee members usually debate the merits of each proposed amendment before voting on it.

During markup, members are often torn between their roles as delegates and as trustees. As delegates, they want to address the particular interests of their home districts or states. As trustees, they want to shape a bill that will be good for the country while also attracting support from other lawmakers, the president, and the general public.

Phase 3: Report. Once subcommittee members deal with the last amendment to the bill, they vote on a motion to return the bill to the full committee. Those who do not want the bill to move on vote no at this point. However, if a bill has made it through markup, it will most likely be sent back to the full standing committee. The standing committee can then accept the bill as is or amend it further—even holding more hearings and its own markup session. It then votes on whether to report the bill to the full House or Senate for a floor vote. If the vote is favorable, the committee staff prepares a written report explaining why the committee recommends the enactment of this bill. It is then up to the full House to agree or disagree with the committee’s recommendation.

H.R.1 Bill: Keep Americans Safe Act 

To amend the regulations by which the President can authorize the interception of electronic communication in order to protect the safety of American citizens.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. Allow the President to authorize government officials to intercept any electronic (e-mail), wireless (cell), or telephone communication they suspect relates to possible terrorist activity, without having to first prove probable cause and obtain a warrant from a U.S. court. This warrantless surveillance authorization would relate only to electronic or telephone communication between someone in the United States and someone in a foreign country. Surveillance of e-mail or phone communication within the United States could only be done if a warrant is obtained from a U.S. court. However, the President has the right to suspend this restriction for 90 days in the event of a terrorist attack or if the President determines that the country is under imminent threat. 

_____________________________________________________

Expert Testimony in Favor of the Keep Americans Safe Act 

I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to present testimony in support of the Keep Americans Safe Act. In today’s world, enemies of the United States use all tools at their disposal to plan terrorist attacks against us. Congress must ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence communities have the proper tools to fight a 21st-century war against these enemies. 

Another terrorist attack inside the United States would likely be masterminded by terrorist leaders who are outside our country. Suppose U.S. intelligence learns the phone number of a suspected terrorist in a foreign country. Under current law, if they wanted to listen to calls between this suspected terrorist and someone in the United States, they would have to obtain a warrant from a U.S. court. To obtain such a warrant, they would have to show probable cause that the person in the United States involved in this communication is a foreign spy or terrorist. However, by law, they are not permitted to get a warrant to find out whether the person is a spy or terrorist. This kind of constraint needlessly-and perhaps dangerously- ties the hands of U.S. intelligence officials. The Keep Americans Safe Act would allow U.S. intelligence to monitor these phone calls, or any other electronic or wireless communication, immediately, without having to go through the process of obtaining a warrant. 

Some U.S. intelligence officials have complained that the process of getting a warrant takes too long. Clearly our enemies will not put their plans to harm American citizens on hold while U.S. intelligence officers work to obtain a warrant. This bill would address this concern by allowing the president to suspend the requirement of warrants for electronic, wireless, or phone communication within the United States in the event of a terrorist attack or if the president determines that the country is under imminent threat of attack. 

As I stated, it is Congress’s job to ensure that U.S. law enforcement and intelligence are equipped with the proper tools to fight a 21st-century war against our enemies. The Keep Americans Safe Act provides them with those tools. 

The following organizations support this bill: 

• Central Intelligence Agency The CIA’s primary function is to obtain and analyze information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons and to report such information to the appropriate branches of the government. 

• Federal Bureau of Investigation The FBI’s mission is “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.” 

• National Association of Chiefs of Police Part of the mission of this association is to encourage educational activities and services, to promote enforcement and security, and to encourage communication between law officers. It has 60,000 eligible members. 

_____________________________________________________

Keep Americans Safe Act submitted and supported by the Republican Party Caucus.

Expert Testimony in Opposition to the Keep Americans Safe Act

Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I find the title of this bill- the Keep Americans Safe Act-very ironic, since I consider it to be quite dangerous. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Supporters of this bill claim that it will provide safety. But it actually threatens all Americans and their civil liberties. 

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution makes it clear that if the federal government wants to listen in on the communication of an American, it must obtain a warrant from a U.S. court. Such a warrant is issued if government officials show that there is probable cause of wrongdoing. This is a simple case of govern- ment checks and balances. We agree with supporters of the bill who argue that surveillance is necessary to counter terrorist threats. However, they make no good argument why such surveillance should be conducted without a judicial warrant. 

For example, proponents of this bill claim that the process for obtaining warrants takes too long. But we have reviewed records that show that this process is efficient in actual emergencies. We have also heard that emergency warrants have been obtained quickly, often the same day and sometimes within minutes. Finally, we have heard that warrants can be approved orally when necessary. Certainly, this bill could be amended so that in emergency situations, judges are available 24/7 to hear and approve requests for warrants. 

We also find very troublesome the provisions in this bill that would allow the president to suspend the requirement to obtain warrants for intercepted communications in the case of a terrorist attack or an imminent threat. This language is so vague that it basically hands any present or future president the power to claim that there is an imminent threat to avoid ever having to obtain warrants. At the very least, this bill should be amended to eliminate this provision. 

The essence of the constitutional protection for individual liberties is the division of powers and the checks and balances among the three branches of government. The requirement that the president must obtain a judicial warrant before intercepting communications of Americans is an example of the checks and balances that protect our rights and liberties. 

Let’s fight terrorism. But let us fight it the right way— consistent with our Constitution and in a manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world. Let us show Benjamin Franklin that we deserve both liberty and safety. 

The following organizations oppose this bill: 

•  American Civil Liberties Union The ACLU’s mission is to preserve the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion; the right to equal protection under the law, regardless of race, sex, religion, or national origin; the right to due process; and the right to privacy. The ACLU has approximately 500,000 members. 

• Electronic Frontier Foundation The EEF’s primary goal is to educate the press, policymakers, and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology and to act as a defender of those liberties. It has a membership of about 50,000 concerned citizens. 

• American Library Association The ALA promotes the right of every individual to seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides free access to all sides of a question, cause, or movement. It is the oldest and largest library association in the world, with approximately 65,000 members. 

_____________________________________________________

Democratic Party Caucus oppose the Keep Americans Safe Act.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the students and speakers of our government classes and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of this website, institution, or organization. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.