Mike Rogers: Still Working on His Technical Changes

According to the HPSCI Report on HR 3361 — which reformers refer to as the USA Freedom Act — Mike Rogers is still changing the fine print.

Members of the Committee will continue to work to make a number of important technical changes to ensure the preservation of operational equities before the full House considers the bill. These technical changes will ensure that the bill does not inadvertently disrupt important intelligence operations.


Chairman Rogers offered an amendment to revise the emergency authority of Section 102, add Section 604, and make other technical changes. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

Given Rogers’ assurances that the bill before us changes no other programs, I’m going to guess that there are actually a few other bulk collection programs that would, under the plain meaning of the bill, be prohibited (bulk collection, even as the Intelligence Community defines it, which means there are no discriminators). Given that Rogers was trying to remove the definition of selection term, I suspect that’s the rub: they think they can still do these bulk collections under the law, but need to tweak the definition of specific selection term (remember, the HPSCI bill originally used “specific identifiers or selection terms”). 

Ah well, I’m sure we should all trust Mike Rogers. What could go wrong?

6 replies
  1. TomVet says:

    I still think Amash had the better idea: pull the plug on their funding. No amount of tweaking the current laws is ever going to survive the watering down it receives by the time it gets through committee then floor votes of both houses and then conference.

    • orionATL says:

      right on!

      this is not the affordable care act (we must satisfy all stakeholders).

      this reform is a calculated usurpation of citizen rights and establishment of a soft (intimidation) police state in the united states.

      • chronicle says:

        quote”this reform is a calculated usurpation of citizen rights and establishment of a soft (intimidation) police state in the united states.”

        yup, in other words.. a coup d’etat. Give it a year and it won’t be so soft. In fact, it’s already looking like the a full blown stasi. After all, The USDA just ordered sub-machine guns and full military scale bullet proof vests. I guess they’re afraid of farmers..er..farming terrorists. Or the BLM one upping them.


        quote”The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, located in Washington, DC, pursuant to the authority of FAR Part 13, has a requirement for the commerical (sic) acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burts (sic) trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe (sic) or folding, magazine – 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.


        However, one needs to read the fine print…


        quote”The 6 pouch and tactical vest requirement description on this USDA quote confirm that these are ASSAULT vests. They’re what troops wear in an attack evolution. This is a full military-styled kit, not designed for typical defensive security work.”unquote

        Add the jackboots they already have and the only thing missing is the swastika.

        Amerika, ….god shine his grace on thee. not.

  2. anonymous says:

    Right on. I urge all concerned Americans not to support this ‘reform’, instead, let it all fall apart. Given the current political energy in the country, that might be the best way of achieving substantial change.

    Let it all fall apart, including the Democratic party, the whole system . . .

    Withdraw consent and start over.

    • chronicle says:

      quote”Withdraw consent and start over.”unquote

      If only the Dumbest Country on the Planet could decipher what that means.

  3. Shwell Thanksh says:

    As you noted, I think he broadcasted his intentions pretty clearly by stating that if the resulting bill would in any way ultimately require them to rein in the status quo, it would be “nonsensical and dangerous.”

Comments are closed.