Tag: transparency

What We Can and Can’t Know About NSA Spying: A Reply to Prof. Cordero

Georgetown Law professor Carrie Cordero—who previously worked at the Department of Justice improving privacy procedures for monitoring under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—attended our event with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) on the FISA Amendments Act last week.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, she’s rather more comfortable with the surveillance authorized by the law than our speakers were, and posted some critical commentary at the Lawfare blog (which is, incidentally, required reading for national security and intelligence buffs). Marcy Wheeler has already posted her own reply, but I’d like to hit a few points as well. Here’s Cordero:

Since at least the summer of 2011, [Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall] have been pushing the Intelligence Community to provide more public information about how the FAA works, and how it affects the privacy rights of Americans. In particular, they have, in a series of letters, requested that the Executive Branch provide an estimate of the number of Americans incidentally intercepted during the course of FAA surveillance. According to the exchanges of letters, the Executive Branch has repeatedly denied the request, on the basis that: i) it would be an unreasonable burden on the workforce (and, presumably, would take intelligence professionals off their national security mission); and ii) gathering the data the senators are requesting would, in and of itself, violate privacy rights of Americans.

The workforce argument, even if true, is, of course, a loser. The question of whether the data call itself would violate privacy rights is a more interesting one. Multiple oversight personnel independent of the operational and analytical wings of the Intelligence Community – including the Office of Management and Budget, the NSA Inspector General, and just last month, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, have all said that the data call requested by the senators is not feasible. The other members of the SSCI appear to accept this claim on its face. Meanwhile, Senator Wyden states he just finds the claim unbelievable. That there must be some way it can be done, he says, if even on a sample basis. Maintaining that position puts him in an interesting place, however: is the privacy advocate actually advocating for violating the privacy rules, to appease a Congressional request? Assuming that he would not actually want to advocate that the rules be waived at the request of a politician, a question then arises as to whether the Intelligence Community has adequately explained exactly how the data call would work and why it would conflict with existing privacy rules and protections, such as minimization procedures.

I’ll grant Cordero this point: as absurd as it sounds to say “we can’t tell you how many Americans we’re spying on, because it would violate their privacy,” this might well be a concern if those of us who follow these issues from the outside are correct in our surmises about what NSA is doing under FAA authority. The only real restriction the law places on the initial interception of communications is that the NSA use “targeting procedures” designed to capture traffic to or from overseas groups and individuals. There’s an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that initial acquisition is therefore extremely broad, with a large percentage of international communications traffic being fed into NSA databases for later querying. If that’s the case, then naturally the tiny subset of communications later reviewed by a human analyst—because they match far narrower criteria for suspicion—is going to be highly unrepresentative. To get even a rough statistical sample of what’s in the larger database, then, one would have to “inspect”—possibly using software—a whole lot of the innocent communications that wouldn’t otherwise ever be analyzed. And possibly the rules currently in place don’t make any allowance for querying the database—even to analyze metadata for the purpose of generating aggregate statistics—unless it’s directly related to an intelligence purpose.

A few points about this.  First: assuming, for the moment, that  this is the case, why can’t NSA and DOJ say so clearly and publicly? Because it would somehow imperil national security to characterize the surveillance program even at this highest level of generality, without any mention of particular search parameters or targets? Would it “help the terrorists” if they answered a more recent query from a bipartisan group of senators, asking whether database searches (as opposed to initial “targeting”) had focused on specific American citizens?  Please.

A  more plausible hypothesis is that they recognize that an official, public acknowledgement that the government is routinely copying and warehousing millions of completely innocent communications—even if they’re only looking at the “suspicious” minority— would not go over entirely smoothly with the citizenry. There might even be a demand for some public debate about whether this is the kind of thing we’re willing to countenance. Legal scholars might become curious whether whatever arguments support the constitutionality of this practice hold up as well in the light of the day as they do when they’re made unopposed in closed chambers. Even without an actual estimate, any meaningful discussion of the workings of the program would be likely to undermine the whole pretense that it only “incidentally” involves the communications of innocent Americans, or that the constraints on “targeting”constitute a meaningful safeguard.  The desire to avoid the whole hornet’s nest using the pretext of national security is perhaps understandable, but it shouldn’t be acceptable in a democracy. Yet everyone knows overclassification is endemic—even the government’s own former “classification czar” has blasted the government’s use of inappropriate secrecy as a weapon against critics.

Second, transparency at this level of generality is an essential component of privacy protection. To the extent that the rules governing  access to the database preclude any attempt to audit its aggregate contents—including by automated software tallying of identifiers such as area codes and IP addresses—then they should indeed be changed, not because a senator demanded it, but because they otherwise preclude adequate oversight. An online service that keeps no server logs would be somewhat more protective of its users privacy… if  its database were otherwise perfectly secure against intrusion or misuse. In the real world, where there’s no such thing as perfect security, such a service would be protecting user privacy extremely poorly, because it would lack the ability to detect and prevent breaches. If it is not possible to audit the NSA’s system in this way, then that system needs to be altered until it is possible. If giving Congress a rough sense of the extent of the agency’s surveillance of Americans falls outside the parameters of the intelligence mission (and therefore the permissible uses of the database), it’s time for a new mission statement.

Finally, Cordero closes by noting the SSCI has touted its own oversight as “extensive” and “robust,” which Cordero thinks “debunks” the  suggestion embedded in our event title that the FAA enables “mass spying without accountability.”  (Can I debunk the debunking by lauding the accuracy and thoroughness of my own analysis?)  Unfortunately, the consensus of most independent analysts of the intelligence committees’ performance is a good deal less sanguine—which makes me hesitant to take that self-assessment at face value.

As scholars frequently point out, the overseers are asked to process incredibly complex information with a limited cleared staff to assist them, and often forbidden to take notes at briefings or remove reports from secure facilities. When you read about those extensive reports, recall that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq only six senators and a handful of representatives ever read past the executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs to the far more qualified language of the  full 92-page report. You might think the intel committees would need to hold more hearings than their counterparts to compensate for these disadvantages, but UCLA’s Amy Zegart has found that they consistently rank at the bottom of the pack, year after year. Little wonder, then, that years of flagrant and systemic misuse of another controversial surveillance tool—National Security Letters—was not uncovered by the “extensive” and “robust” oversight of the intelligence committees, but by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

In any event, we seem to have at least 13 senators who don’t believe they’ve been provided with enough information to perform their oversight role adequately. Perhaps they’re setting the bar too high, but I find it more likely that their colleagues—who over time naturally grow to like and trust the intelligence officials upon whom they rely for their information—are a bit too easily satisfied. There are no  prizes for expending time, energy, and political capital on ferreting out civil liberties problems in covert intelligence programs, least of all in an election year. It’s far easier to be satisfied with whatever data the intelligence community deigns to dribble out—often with heroic indifference to statutory reporting deadlines—and take it on faith that everything’s running as smoothly as they say. That allows you to write, and even believe, that you’re conducting “robust” oversight without knowing (as Wyden’s letter suggests the committee members do not) roughly how many Americans are being captured in NSA’s database, how many purely-domestic communications have been intercepted,  whether warrantless “backdoor” targeting of Americans is being done via the selection of database queries. But the public need not be so easily satisfied, nor accept that meaningful “accountability” exists when all those extensive reports leave the overseers ignorant of so many basic facts.

OMB’s Laggard Transparency Record

On Monday, I wrote about the rapidly growing movement to replace the Office of Management and Budget with a different coordinator for standardized publication of government spending data. Why? Because the OMB hasn’t been standardizing and publishing data about government spending. That’s why.

Yesterday, Kaitlin Lee posted a three-part indictment of the OMB on the Sunlight Foundation blog, called “OMB’s Commitment to Data Quality: Too Little, Too Late.” Lee is deeply knowledgeable in this area and extraordinarily patient with the data problems the government throws at her. Credit what you read in her blog post.

(See also the Data Transparency Coalition’s rebuttal of OMB controller Danny Werfel, who appears to be guiding the Obama administration toward opposition to spending data transparency.)

The drumbeat for better data is growing louder, it’s pan-ideological, and it’s non-partisan. Will the OMB preempt the DATA Act by moving forward with real data reforms, or will Congress preempt the OMB’s role?

On Transparent Data: Use It or Lose It, OMB

At a recent event on “lessons learned” from the Recovery Act, Earl Devaney, who served as chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, talked about the “crying need for data standardization in government.” (35:00) Good data wouldn’t only help expose waste, fraud, and abuse. It would help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

“There was so much sunlight on [Recovery Act] money,” he said, “that the bad guys just sort of said to themselves, ‘Well, we’ll just continue to steal Medicare money…’.” (38:25) That’s entertaining stuff.

But the really interesting comments came from Danny Werfel, controller of the Office of Management and Budget. He criticized the DATA Act, which would create an independent commission to standardize federal spending data. (40:30) “Slammed” it, according to Federal Computer Week.

The OMB has effective and transparent processes in place to create rules for agencies to follow in obligating and spending funds, Werfel said, and it has a history of working with agencies to do so. A new commission would add “a new layer of regulation.” Why would we not “leverage the existing instruments of government”?

Here’s why: The OMB still has not produced a machine-readable organization chart for the federal government. There is still no authoritative and reliable set of identifiers computers can use to identify even the top two layers of the federal bureaucracy: agencies and bureaus.

If the OMB can’t do this utterly basic stuff, if it can’t come up with standard identifiers for the programs underneath agencies and bureaus, and if it can’t create a uniform process for identifying and tracking awards and outlays of taxpayer dollars, there may not be as much there to “leverage” as we thought.

President Obama came into office promising great strides in transparency. By the end of his third year in office, he complied with his Sunlight Before Signing campaign promise just 52.4% of the time. President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget publishes the government’s top-level organization chart in a disorderly PDF document.

Why wouldn’t the public go looking for a replacement?

Data Transparency Coalition Debuts Today

Meet the Data Transparency Coalition.

The Washington Post’s Capitol Business blog reports this morning:

A small but growing collection of companies has formed a coalition that will push the federal government to establish a standard system by which agencies categorize their data. …

“Our members understand that if the government identified its data elements in consistent ways, there would be vast new opportunities for the tools that they are building,” Executive Director Hudson Hollister said.

Early supporters include Microsoft and data analysis and management firms Level One Technologies, Teradata, and BrightScope. I’m on their Board of Advisors. One of their early priorities will be to pass H.R. 2146, the DATA Act.

Cato has worked extensively on government transparency, beginning with our December 2008 policy forum entitled, “Just Give Us the Data! Prospects for Putting Government Information to Revolutionary New Uses.”

We have modeled much of the data that the government should be publishing in standardized formats (much more cheaply than CBO has estimated it would cost) and graded the quality of current data publication in the areas of congressional process and budgeting, appropriating, and spending. Expect improvements to come with this new organization joining other efforts.

Follow the coalition’s founder and executive director on Twitter @hudsonhollister, and you can Like their Facebook page, as well, to get updates that way.

Helping the House Advance Data Transparency

The House of Representatives is poised to make great strides forward in transparency, and our work over the last year aims to help them do that. Here’s how this spreadsheet (.xls) will do that.

In December, the House Administration Committee announced a plan to improve the publication of House documents. In January, a new site—docs.house.gov—went live. (It’s attractive looking, but still bare-bones.) On Thursday this week, the Committee is hosting a “Legislative Data and Transparency Conference” to examine what data is out there and what data should be out there. Little information is on the Web yet, but you can sign up to attend at the link just above.

I’ll be speaking on the last panel of the day, which deals with measuring transparency success. Likely, they chose me for this panel because I’ve already been grading the government on its publication practices.

Last September, you see, we graded Congress on how well it publishes data that would assist the public in computer-aided oversight. The summary blog post is called “Needs Improvement.” And then in December, we graded the government on publication of budget, appropriations, and spending data. That’s a joint legislative-executive responsibility, but mostly executive. The message was: “‘Needs Improvement’ is Understatement.”

How do you grade Congress and the government on their data publication?

You start out by modeling the data government should publish. We put together a data model for legislative process, for example, and then a data model for budgeting, appropriating, and spending. We got a great deal of help from folks at the Sunlight Foundation, OMB Watch, and others such as the National Priorities Project, as well as data guru Josh Tauberer, whose latest project is PopVox.

Even with all this help, these models won’t be the last word—there is much to learn yet about the data structure that will serve every use the public may want to make of information. But it’s a strong start.

Then we compared the data that’s actually out there to the practices described in my paper, “Publication Practices for Transparent Government,” and out popped the grades! They were pretty bad…

The House of Representatives aims to fix that—for its part, at least.

Now to this spreadsheet: it’s a list of the things that should be identified in congressional documents so that computers can find the most salient information in them. It also indicates the “vocabularies” that already exist for identifying many of them: members of Congress, bills, laws, statutes, committees, agencies, programs, and so on. We’ve talked about how to identify “budget authority” and appropriations (spending) so that computers can capture that information from bills and committee reports. Locations, state and foreign governments, times, meetings—all these things can be put into electronic versions of documents to allow computer-aided public oversight.

Once documents contain data like this in the proper structures, literally thousands of questions about Congress will be answered instantly.

  • How much new budget authority has each member of Congress proposed? Voted for? Voted against? Allowed to go through on voice vote or unanimous consent? How about this same information by state? By region? Or by seniority?
  • What title of the U.S. code do members of Congress most often propose to amend? What title do they actually amend the most?
  • What bills affect my state specifically, such as by naming buildings, creating wilderness areas, changing boundaries on parks, or giving land to localities?
  • How often do my member of Congress and senators break with their party?

These are just a few examples. In the hands of varied users, the data will be converted to hundreds or thousands of uses. It will go into studies performed by political scientists and it will supercharge news reporting. But more importantly, it will go into services that inform people directly and quickly about how their own representatives in Congress are acting and what they’re saying.

It will give people insight into where the money goes—from the moment new spending is proposed all the way through to when Congress spends it—or declines to spend.

Credit is due to the leadership in the House of Representative for starting this work. There is a lot to do before they show clear success. But they are way ahead of President Obama, whose Sunlight Before Signing transparency promise lags badly, and who has yet to put together a machine-readable organization chart for the executive branch of the federal government. He can easily do the latter, and coordination with Congress is essential for transparency success. The sooner that happens the better.

Sunlight Before Signing, Year Three

In last night’s State of the Union speech, President Obama called for tax law reforms he says we need. Cato scholars have their doubts about much of what was in the speech, but my interest was piqued by the fact that he said, “Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away.”

You see signing them “right away” would again violate his 2008 campaign promise to post the bills sent him by Congress online for five days before signing them.

That’s a cheeky point, but it is time to focus on campaign promises and their honesty. The beginning of President Obama’s fourth year in office is roughly the beginning of his campaign for another term.

When I first began tracking President Obama’s Sunlight Before Signing promise, I joked with friends that it was career gold because I could write hundreds of blog posts for the next four years without thinking a new thought. Well, it’s not quite that good. This is post thirty-six in the SBS series.

(Each character in that last sentence was a link to a previous post. You can spend a whole day reviewing them!)

Last Thursday, January 19th, was the end of President Obama’s third year, so it’s time to review how he’s been doing with Sunlight Before Signing. It was the president’s first broken promise, and at the mid-point of the term he had popped just above 50% in his compliance.

How has he done in the ensuing year?

Well … meh.

Of the 90 bills that became law in the last year, 55 got the Sunlight Before Signing treatment. That’s a 61.1% average, good enough to earn a middle-school student a D.

Number of Bills Emergency Bills Bills Posted Five Days
2009 124 0 6
2010 258 1 186
2011 90 0 55
Overall 472 1 247


Year three was stronger than the previous two, so President Obama’s overall Sunlight Before Signing record moves to 52.4%. That’s poor execution on a transparency promise that energized audiences on the 2008 campaign trail. But let’s dig a little deeper.

At the end of the second year, we did some analysis and graphing to explore the hunch that inconsequential bills get plenty of sunlight and the more important ones do not. We return to that analysis.

Our first look is at compliance with Sunlight Before Signing over time. The updated numbers show essentially the same as they did before. After a first year of outright failure, there has been improvement—nowhere near perfection, just improvement.

(You can also see that Congress’ output dropped dramatically in 2011. That’s a matter of indifference in terms of Sunlight Before Signing—and a good thing if you like limited government.)

Click on the image at right to see a chart of compliance and non-compliance by number of bills over time, then compliance as a percentage of bills over time, and, in the pie chart, that overall compliance figure.

We also investigated previously the hunch that important bills get less sunlight, while unimportant bills get more. Our first proxy for importance—a rough one—was the number of pages in the bills coming to the president. Generally speaking, longer bills are more important than shorter ones. The second set of charts (click on the left) show Sunlight Before Signing compliance and non-compliance over time by number of pages, compliance by percentage of pages, and overall compliance by number of pages. You can see that overall compliance drops well below 50% to about 36%.

Another proxy for importance is the number of final passage votes a bill got in the House and Senate. Generally speaking—and it’s definitely not always true—more important bills are voted on in the House, the Senate, or both. Less important bills go through on voice vote, unanimous consent, and so on. (Sometimes important bills go through without votes because the political balances are so carefully struck. That’s good for Congress “getting things done,” but not good for transparency or your ability to oversee the government.)

Go ahead and click on the image to the right and you can see the charts reflecting Sunlight Before Signing compliance and non-compliance over time with multipliers given to bills getting one or two final votes. That result is not so decisive: compliance drops by a small amount to about 50%.

There’s still time for President Obama to execute on Sunlight Before Signing. He could make a real run at transparency by signalling right now—today—that all bills will get five-days online before he signs them. If Congress wants to finish appropriations this year at the last minute. They had better do that at the last minute plus five days or else the government will shut down.

Maybe that’s a silly idea. Maybe no president in his right mind would do something like that. If so, consider that President Obama promised to do exactly that when he campaigned for the presidency. If he was being fanciful during his last campaign, voters might consider that during his next campaign, just as they consider the credibility of all candidates. President Obama’s transparency promises have been unparalleled. His results … quite paralleled.

Perhaps President Obama is going to limp to the next election without fulfilling Sunlight Before Signing. The president could still score some real transparency points by publishing a machine-readable organization chart for the executive branch, with agencies, bureaus, programs, and projects all uniquely identified for computer processing. That would be big, and it would not be that hard.

In the meantime, here are the Sunlight Before Signing results for all the bills signed into law during President Obama’s third year.

Public Law Date Presented Date Signed Posted [(Linked)]? Posted Five Days?
P.L. 112-1, To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small

Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes

1/28/2011 1/31/2011 [1/28/2011] No
P.L. 112-2, A bill to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 98 West

First Street, Yuma, Arizona, as the “John M. Roll United States Courthouse”

2/11/2011 2/17/2011 [2/11/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-3, The FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 2/23/2011 2/25/2011 [2/23/2011 No
P.L. 112-4, The Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 3/2/2011 3/2/2011 [3/2/2011] No
P.L. 112-5, The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 3/3/2011 3/4/2011 No No
P.L. 112-6, The Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 3/17/2011 3/18/2011 No No
P.L. 112-7, The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011 3/30/2011 3/31/2011 3/30/2011 No
P.L. 112-8, The Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act,

2011

4/9/2011 4/9/2011 No No
P.L. 112-9, The Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy

Overpayments Act of 2011

4/6/2011 4/14/2011 [4/7/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-10, The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,

2011

4/15/2011 4/15/2011 [4/14/2011] No
P.L. 112-11, A bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located

at 217 West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia, as the “W. Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United States Courthouse”

4/14/2011 4/25/2011 [4/14/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-12, A joint resolution providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case as a

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

4/14/2011 4/25/2011 [4/14/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-13, To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act to extend the termination

date for the Commission, and for other purposes

5/2/2011 5/12/2011 [5/2/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-14, The PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 5/26/2011 5/26/2011 No No
P.L. 112-15, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12781

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Inverness, California, as the “Specialist Jake Robert Velloza Post Office”

5/26/2011 5/31/2011 [5/26/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-16, The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part II 5/26/2011 5/31/2011 [5/26/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-17, The Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011 6/1/2011 6/1/2011 [6/1/2011] No
P.L. 112-18, The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 6/1/2011 6/8/2011 [6/1/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-19, A joint resolution providing for the reappointment of Shirley Ann Jackson as a

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

6/21/2011 6/24/2011 [6/21/2011] No
P.L. 112-20, A joint resolution providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

6/21/2011 6/24/2011 [6/21/2011] No
P.L. 112-21, The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part III 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 [6/28/2011] No
P.L. 112-22, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

4865 Tallmadge Road in Rootstown, Ohio, as the “Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray Post

6/23/2011 6/29/2011 [6/23/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-23, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the “Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office”

6/23/2011 6/29/2011 [6/23/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-24, A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation

7/26/2011 7/26/2011 [7/26/2011] No
P.L. 112-25, The Budget Control Act of 2011 8/2/2011 8/2/2011 No No
P.L. 112-26, The Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011 7/28/2011 8/3/2011 [7/28/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-27, The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV 8/5/2011 8/5/2011 [8/5/2011] No
P.L. 112-28, To provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with greater authority and

discretion in enforcing the consumer product safety laws, and for other purposes

8/5/2011 8/12/2011 [8/5/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-29, The America Invents Act 9/12/2011 9/16/2011 [9/12/2011] No
P.L. 112-30, The Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011 9/16/2011 9/16/2011 No No
P.L. 112-31, A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 80 Lafayette Street

in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse

9/22/2011 9/23/2011 [9/22/2011] No
P.L. 112-32, The Combating Autism 9/29/2011 9/30/2011 [9/29/2011] No
P.L. 112-33, The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 9/29/2011 9/30/2011 [9/29/2011] No
P.L. 112-34, The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act 9/27/2011 9/30/2011 [9/28/2011] No
P.L. 112-35, The Short-Term TANF Extension Act 9/27/2011 9/30/2011 [9/27/2011] No
P.L. 112-36, The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 10/4/2011 10/5/2011 [10/4/2011] No
P.L. 112-37, The Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2011 9/27/2011 10/5/2011 [9/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-38, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1081

Elbel Road in Schertz, Texas, as the “Schertz Veterans Post Office”

10/6/2011 10/12/2011 [10/6/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-39, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5014

Gary Avenue in Lubbock, Texas, as the “Sergeant Chris Davis Post Office”

10/6/2011 10/12/2011 [10/6/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-40, To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes

10/13/2011 10/21/2011 [10/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-41, The United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 10/13/2011 10/21/2011 [10/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-42, The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act

10/13/2011 10/21/2011 [10/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-43, The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act 10/13/2011 10/21/2011 [10/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-44, The United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2011 10/13/2011 10/21/2011 [10/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-45, To clarify the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to

the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir, and for other purposes

10/31/2011 11/7/2011 10/31/2011 Yes
P.L. 112-46, The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 10/31/2011 11/7/2011 [10/31/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-47, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 489

Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the “John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building”

10/31/2011 11/7/2011 [10/31/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-48, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 281

East Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, California, as the “First Lieutenant Oliver Goodall Post Office Building”

10/31/2011 11/7/2011 [10/31/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-49, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 45

Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts, as the “Matthew A. Pucino Post Office”

10/31/2011 11/7/2011 [10/31/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-50, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4354

Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as the “Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building”

10/31/2011 11/7/2011 [10/31/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-51, The Removal Clarification Act of 2011 11/4/2011 11/9/2011 [11/4/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-52, To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment

contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District

11/4/2011 11/9/2011 [11/4/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-53, The Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011 11/3/2011 11/9/2011 [11/3/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-54, The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of

2011

11/10/2011 11/12/2011 [11/10/2011] No
P.L. 112-55, The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 11/17/2011 11/18/2011 No No
P.L. 112-56, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3

percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities

11/19/2011 11/21/2011 No No
P.L. 112-57, The Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011 11/14/2011 11/21/2011 [11/14/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-58, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active-duty

service abroad in the Armed Forces, the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status,

and for other purposes

11/16/2011 11/23/2011 [11/16/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-59, To grant the congressional gold medal to the Montford Point Marines 11/15/2011 11/23/2011 [11/15/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-60, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

462 Washington Street, Woburn Massachusetts, as the “Officer John Maguire Post Office”

11/17/2011 11/23/2011 [11/17/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-61, The America’s Cup Act of 2011 11/18/2011 11/29/2011 [11/21/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-62, The Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011 11/18/2011 11/29/2011 [11/18/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-63, The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 12/2/2011 12/7/2011 [12/2/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-64, The National Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Extension Act of 2011 12/7/2011 12/13/2011 [12/7/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-65, A bill to revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers of America, Inc.

to reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership

12/8/2011 12/13/2011 [12/8/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-66, A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to authorize the American Legion

under its Federal charter to provide guidance and leadership to the individual departments and posts of the American Legion, and for other purposes

12/8/2011 12/13/2011 [12/8/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-67, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012, and for other

purposes

12/16/2011 12/16/2011 No No
P.L. 112-68, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012, and for other

purposes

12/17/2011 12/17/2011 No No
P.L. 112-69, The Fort Pulaski National Monument Lease Authorization Act 12/9/2011 12/19/2011 [12/9/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-70, The Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act 12/9/2011 12/19/2011 [12/9/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-71, A joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the

compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years

12/13/2011 12/19/2011 [12/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-72, The Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 12/13/2011 12/20/2011 [12/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-73, The Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011 12/13/2011 12/20/2011 [12/13/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-74, The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 12/21/2011 12/23/2011 [12/21/2011] No
P.L. 112-75, The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and

Reauthorization Act of 2011

12/19/2011 12/23/2011 [12/19/2011] No
P.L. 112-76, The Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act 12/19/2011 12/23/2011 [12/19/2011] No
P.L. 112-77, The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 12/21/2011 12/23/2011 [12/21/2011] No
P.L. 112-78, The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 12/23/2011 12/23/2011 No No
P.L. 112-79, The Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act of 2011 12/20/2011 12/23/2011 [12/20/2011] No
P.L. 112-80, A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the

United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research

12/16/2011 12/23/2011 [12/16/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-81, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 12/21/2011 12/31/2011 [12/21/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-82, The Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011 12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-83, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20

Main Street in Little Ferry, New Jersey, as the “Sergeant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office”

12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-84, To protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial

Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes

12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-85, To designate the property between the United States Federal Courthouse and the

Ed Jones Building located at 109 South Highland Avenue in Jackson, Tennessee, as the “M.D. Anderson Plaza” and to authorize the placement of a

historical/identification marker on the grounds recognizing the achievements and philanthropy of M.D. Anderson

12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-86, The Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of The Armed Forces Act 12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-87, The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-88, To instruct the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

to study the impact of insured depository institution failures, and for other purposes

12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-89, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 45 Bay

Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, as the “Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office”

12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes
P.L. 112-90, The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of

2011

12/23/2011 1/3/2012 [12/27/2011] Yes



[Brackets indicate a link from Whitehouse.gov to Thomas legislative database]

SOPA/PIPA: Harbinger or Aberration?

He’s not unrestrained, but Larry Downes sees the remarkable downfall of legislation to regulate the Internet’s engineering as a harbinger of things to come. Jerry Brito, meanwhile, tells us “Why We Won’t See Many Protests like the SOPA Blackout.”

They’re both right—over different time-horizons. The information environment and economics of political organization today are still quite stacked against public participation in our unwieldy federal government. But in time this will change. Congress and Washington, D.C.’s advocacy and lobbying groups now have some idea what the future will feel like.