Congress will return from its weeklong Thanksgiving break facing a rapidly-shrinking timeline to reform and renew an authority the intelligence community says is critical to identifying and disrupting terrorist plots.

The key piece of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as Section 702 and passed in 2008, is set to expire at the end of the year. It allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect the texts and emails of foreigners abroad without an individualized warrant — even when the subjects communicate with Americans in the U.S.

Throughout the fall, privacy advocates on Capitol Hill pushed for changes to the law to curtail what critics say is a violation of Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections — a push that seemed to gain some momentum despite the objections of the Trump administration.

ADVERTISEMENT

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte Robert (Bob) William GoodlatteNo documents? Hoping for legalization? Be wary of Joe Biden Press: Trump's final presidential pardon: himself USCIS chief Cuccinelli blames Paul Ryan for immigration inaction MORE (R-Va.) has long said that a clean reauthorization of Section 702 would not pass the House, where the powerful Freedom Caucus has banded together with privacy-minded Democrats to advocate for tighter restrictions on how government investigators can use data gathered under the program.

But with just a few weeks left until the Dec. 31 deadline, even those tracking the debate closely aren’t sure what reforms, if any, will see the floor in either chamber.

The House Judiciary Committee earlier this month voted to pass its package to extend the law with some modest reforms — tweaks that the Freedom Caucus, long seen as the most likely roadblock to a clean reauthorization, says don’t go nearly far enough.

But asked by The Hill after the vote if they would be able to block the measure, Rep. Jim Jordan James (Jim) Daniel JordanSunday shows preview: Justice Ginsburg dies, sparking partisan battle over vacancy before election House passes resolution condemning anti-Asian discrimination relating to coronavirus Republicans call for Judiciary hearing into unrest in cities run by Democrats MORE (R-Ohio) had a three-word answer: “I doubt it.”

In the Senate, Sen. Dianne Feinstein Dianne Emiel FeinsteinBiden leads Trump by 12 points among Catholic voters: poll Names to watch as Trump picks Ginsburg replacement on Supreme Court McConnell says Trump nominee to replace Ginsburg will get Senate vote MORE (D-Calif.) failed to push through additional restrictions in an Intelligence Committee vote last month. Like the Freedom Caucus, some privacy advocates saw her as their best chance in the chamber of pulling the votes needed to make significant changes.

She told The Hill: “I tried — and I didn’t do it. I lost.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Feinstein voted to advance the underlying bill out of committee after her amendment failed and, like Jordan, she is pessimistic about her chances of forcing changes if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGraham: GOP will confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election Trump puts Supreme Court fight at center of Ohio rally The Memo: Dems face balancing act on SCOTUS fight MORE (R-Ky.) brings it to the floor for a vote — something that’s far from certain.

“I could do it on the floor — not that I’d win it, but I’d try,” she said.

Even the future of the Judiciary proposal — already a compromise measure seen as the most likely vehicle for modest reforms — appears in some jeopardy. The House Intelligence Committee, which shares jurisdiction over Section 702, is not on board with the so-called USA Liberty Act and is in quiet talks with leadership about the future of the law.

Those discussions have set off alarm bells among USA Liberty Act supporters, who are fearful that leadership will attach a watered-down version of the bill to must-pass legislation at the end of the year.

“We are concerned by reports that, over the coming break, your office will meet with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ‘to chart a path forward’ on Section 702,” a bipartisan group of Judiciary lawmakers wrote in a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan Paul Davis RyanKenosha will be a good bellwether in 2020 At indoor rally, Pence says election runs through Wisconsin Juan Williams: Breaking down the debates MORE (R-Wis.) last week.

“We believe that you will meet resistance on any measure that further weakens the privacy protections built into the USA Liberty Act.”

House lawmakers could pursue a short-term extension of the law to allow the two committees to iron out their differences — but most lawmakers are not keen to place the NSA program in legal limbo.

In the Senate, close watchers of the debate have long suspected that McConnell will wait to see what the House, with its weightier group of reform advocates, winds up passing. Some speculate he may follow a version of the playbook he used in a failed 2015 bid to pass a clean reauthorization of the Patriot Act — wait for the House to go first, then try to pass a clean renewal at the last minute in an attempt to jam it through the lower chamber.

But that gambit resulted in a reform measure known as the Freedom Act and now, as he was then, McConnell will likely be forced to accept at least some changes to the existent authority — a clean reauthorization is almost certainly a nonstarter in the House.

At issue is whether federal investigators should be required to obtain a warrant before searching databases of Section 702-derived data for Americans’ information — under current law, a warrant is not needed.

The USA Liberty Act would require criminal investigators to obtain a court order before viewing the content of any Americans’ communications collected under the NSA program — but would not require a warrant to search the database in the first place, the broad change sought by privacy advocates. It would also not put any restrictions on queries in national security cases, which constitute the vast majority of searches.



The Senate Intelligence Committee legislation, favored by leadership, includes some small reforms but eschews a warrant requirement entirely. House lawmakers have characterized that bill as dead on arrival in the lower chamber.

Sens. Patrick Leahy Patrick Joseph LeahyBattle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy Hillicon Valley: Russia 'amplifying' concerns around mail-in voting to undermine election | Facebook and Twitter take steps to limit Trump remarks on voting | Facebook to block political ads ahead of election Top Democrats press Trump to sanction Russian individuals over 2020 election interference efforts MORE (D-Vt.) and Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeMcConnell shores up GOP support for coronavirus package McConnell tries to unify GOP Davis: The Hall of Shame for GOP senators who remain silent on Donald Trump MORE (R-Utah) have introduced a companion measure to the USA Liberty Act that would require government investigators to obtain a warrant before reviewing communications to or from Americans gathered under the program, in both criminal and national security cases, but it’s seen as having little chance of passage.

Supporters of the Leahy-Lee legislation hope it might put pressure on lawmakers to include more privacy protections than currently written in the Intelligence Committee legislation.

House leadership has already signaled that a warrant requirement to search the database for a U.S. person is a nonstarter.

Reps. Ted Poe Lloyd (Ted) Theodore PoeSheila Jackson Lee tops colleagues in House floor speaking days over past decade Senate Dem to reintroduce bill with new name after 'My Little Pony' confusion Texas New Members 2019 MORE (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren Zoe Ellen LofgrenTop Democrats call for DOJ watchdog to probe Barr over possible 2020 election influence DHS opens probe into allegations at Georgia ICE facility House passes legislation to boost election security research MORE (D-Calif.) tried to introduce an amendment to Liberty that would have required a warrant at the point of query, but they were voted down 12-21.

“We have been assured in explicit terms that if we adopt this amendment today, leadership will not permit this bill to proceed to the House floor,” House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers John James ConyersBiden's immigration plan has serious problems Tlaib wins Michigan Democratic primary Tlaib holds lead in early vote count against primary challenger MORE Jr. (D-Mich.), who crafted the USA Liberty Act with Goodlatte, said during the markup of the bill.

The act's supporters say they’re only mildly concerned that leadership will try to jam through merely Potemkin reforms, citing the resolve of those seeking more meaningful changes. In their letter to Ryan, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner Frank (Jim) James SensenbrennerRepublicans call for Judiciary hearing into unrest in cities run by Democrats Scott Fitzgerald wins Wisconsin GOP primary to replace Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner Hillicon Valley: House panel grills tech CEOs during much anticipated antitrust hearing | TikTok to make code public as it pushes back against 'misinformation' | House Intel panel expands access to foreign disinformation evidence MORE (R-Wis.), Conyers, Poe and Lofgren insisted that a clean reauthorization of Section 702 would still not pass the House.

“All four of us agree on this point: we will work together to oppose any effort to reauthorize Section 702 that does not include meaningful reform.”

But the clock is ticking — raising the odds that the committee’s work will be swept aside in a year-end flurry of action on tax reform, potential immigration legislation and government funding bills.

"The biggest concern for us is the time crunch," a House aide told The Hill.