September 20, 2006 6:25 PM PDT

House panel endorses controversial spy bill

Republicans on a key congressional committee on Wednesday approved legislation they described as a necessary rewrite to electronic surveillance law but attacked by Democrats, civil libertarians and technology advocacy groups as flawed and unconstitutional.

In a 20-16 vote mostly along party lines, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee backed an amended version of the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006, a Republican-sponsored measure introduced in July. Two Republicans and all 14 Democrats present rejected the proposal.

"This legislation is a priority for the president and critical to our national efforts to detect and disrupt acts of terrorism before they occur," said Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who co-sponsored the controversial bill with Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican.

Supporters said the bill's provisions would aid terrorist investigations by relaxing the requirements for warrants to conduct electronic surveillance and addressing modern communications in a "technology neutral" way not foreseen by the 28-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The Bush administration has acknowledged that its controversial National Security Agency terrorist surveillance program was not approved by the FISA court--but argue the president's constitutional powers as commander in chief, among other things, provide ample legal authority.

Meanwhile, civil liberties advocates have accused the administration of intruding into phone calls and e-mails of millions of innocent Americans, and even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales conceded earlier this year that some "ordinary" citizens could be swept up in the quest for rogue targets.

During about two hours of debate leading up to Wednesday's vote, Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, ticked off a number of flaws he perceived in the Republican-backed approach. Those gripes included a lack of limits on presidential power to conduct warrantless surveillance, extending FISA snooping to new categories of individuals and corporations who have no connection to foreign governments or terrorists, and allowing the government to maintain records and "massive databases" on surveilled individuals "in perpetuity."

"We all want to fight terrorism, but we need to fight it in the right way, consistent with our Constitution, and in a manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world," Conyers said in prepared testimony. "This bill does not meet that test."

Joining ongoing protests from advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which have led many of the efforts to sue government agencies and telecommunications companies accused of illegal spying, a Washington-based technology trade association also served up its opposition to the surveillance bill this week.

"The mere possibility of widespread, secret, and unchecked surveillance of the billions of messages that flow among our customers, especially U.S. citizens, will corrode the fundamental openness and freedom necessary for our communications networks," Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, wrote in a letter (click for PDF) to the committee on Tuesday. CCIA's members include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Red Hat.

"Even if this power is not deliberately misused," Black went on, "the loss of a sense of privacy in personal and confidential business communications will inflict great and long-lasting damage on the dynamic and innovative growth intrinsic to the high-technology sector."

Some Judiciary Committee members offered amendments on Wednesday designed to quell constitutional concerns raised by opponents. In a move supported by both parties, Sensenbrenner proposed an amendment that stripped two portions of the underlying bill that would have allowed warrantless surveillance to continue for up to 60 days after an "armed attack" on the United States and up to 45 days after a "terrorist attack." He said the provisions' language was too vague and needed additional work.

Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican, also described a 25-page amendment that he claimed would add additional clarifications and constitutional protections. The proposed changes ultimately were approved, but not before Democrats raised questions about whether they could trust the measure without having studied it in advance and even called for halting the meeting until it could be more thoroughly examined. Efforts by CNET to obtain a copy of the Lungren amendments met with no response.

Those actions represent "a lot of smoke and not a lot of fire," Lisa Graves, the ACLU's senior counsel for legislative strategy. "There's a lot of optics going on, but behind the scenes...I'm sure they've already worked out a deal to make sure the White House gets what it wants at the end of the day."

The same bill was also slated for a vote on Wednesday afternoon at a closed meeting of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, of which Wilson is a member. Committee representatives were not immediately available to comment on the outcome of those proceedings. But according to the ACLU, a different version of the Republican proposal, which still lacked adequate safeguards by its estimation, was approved by the intelligence panel.

In a move sure to ruffle feathers among civil libertarians, the Judiciary committee also approved along party lines an amendment designed to shield from legal liability any individual or company that complies with surveillance requests from any intelligence program.

The move would effectively "eliminate the 60 or more lawsuits filed because companies complied with government orders," such as the one lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T, said Rep. Chris Cannon, the amendment's sponsor. Without such protection in place, he said, "an individual or company will be reluctant to cooperate with any government authorized surveillance program, which will severely undercut government's efforts (to prevent terrorist attacks)."

Republicans shot down a number of amendments offered primarily by Democrats, including more than one proposal designed to establish FISA as the exclusive means by which the president can sign off on electronic surveillance programs.

The House Judiciary Committee vote arrived one week after its counterpart in the Senate narrowly approved three bills relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, cuing them up for a vote soon on the Senate floor.

The most controversial measure of the three, offered by Committee Chairman Arlen Specter with the White House's blessing, has drawn attacks from Democrats and civil liberties groups who claim it would erode the 1978 spy law's checks on executive power and violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections for Americans by authorizing unchecked intrusions on Internet and telephone communications.

The bill's supporters, for their part, say it signals that the president does not have a "blank check" to do warrantless surveillance and that he has volunteered to submit the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program for constitutional review if the bill passes, even though it doesn't explicitly require such a move.

Sensenbrenner said he expected the House version to go to a floor vote as soon as next week. It was not immediately clear when the Senate would take up its proposals.

See more CNET content tagged:
surveillance, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, legislation, Democrat, Republican


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
warrantless searches
The greatest thing about the United States is its constitution, the only one of its kind in the world. On election the new president swears not to protect the country, the government or anything else, just the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to limit government or executive power to prevent tyranny of any of those bodies impinging on the rights of american citizens the whole principle of "You can trust me I'm George Bush, I'm your president," is the very thing the founding father's were afraid of. The last George that did that started the revolutionary war. The big question is, why hasn't the Democratic party pledged that in their next congress they will repeal it?
Posted by Anthony Pollock (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Democrats haven't...
said they would undo any of Bush's transgressions on the Constitution because they won't. Hell, they got us into a number of "police actions", "little wars", "Vietnams", whatever. There really isn't a whit bit of difference between the two parties behind the voter's back, just hot air and rhetoric. Ask any of them what their personal action plan is, how they actually plan on implementing their platform rhetoric & you'll get squat.
Posted by kenny-J (53 comments )
Link Flag
King George presides over the Business State
We are in trouble.
Posted by ordaj (338 comments )
Reply Link Flag
good morning!
Wipe the sleep from your eyes - we've been in trouble for 6 years
now. Nice of you to finally wake up to this fact. Now please go
check your neighbors to see if they're awake yet. We wouldn't want
them to wake up in a Nazi dictatorship now, would we?

Posted by Dalkorian (3000 comments )
Link Flag
rewriting the constitution little here, little there
Ve mus proteked the citizen from hizzelf ya. Freedom ist a commodity best controled by those who can profit by it ya. Work ist freedom ya.
Posted by aqvarivs (38 comments )
Reply Link Flag
rework the constitution
Constitution? Constitution? What is that?

Bush has signed something like 800 amendments to it?
Posted by emeraldgate (53 comments )
Link Flag
I reread an article the other day which becomes more true daily
I was on the subway home after work reading the following article. It was written Sept 12, 2001 and how true is has become. There have been no reports that any other terror units where successfully prevented from achieving tehir objectives by these measures. In fact, teh early evidence is that all these police-state-like impositions on freedom were exactly usless -- and in the smoldering ruins of the Wordl Trade Centrer lies the proof of their failure.

We have learned today that increased surveillance is not the answer. The FBI's "Carnivour" tap on the US Internet service providers didn't spot or prefent this disaster; nore did the NSA's illegal Echel on wiretaps on international telecommunications. Video monitoring of public areas could have accomplished exactly nothing against terorists taking even elementary concealment measures. If we could somehow extend airport level security to the entire US, it would be just as usless against any determined and even marginally competent enemy.

We have learned today that trying to keep civilian weapons out of airplanes and other areas vulnerable to terrorist attack is not the answer either -- indeed, it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe.

(here's the bit that was really interesting after watching it come true)

I expect that in the next few months, far too many polititicians and pundits will press for draconian "anti-terrorist" laws and regulations. Those who do so will be, whether intentionally or not, cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to destroy our way of life -- and we should all remember that fact come election time.

End Excerpt
Posted by jabbotts (492 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I am all for going after those than mean to destroy us simply for what amounts to economic and religious reasons. However, when the word terrorist is thrown around with no real, precise definition each of us can at anytime be classified as a terrorist. I could be defined as a terrorist for writing this comment. In short, this is no different from McCarthyism - only now "terrorist" is replacing "Communist". This is no different than saying we need to make law that forces ISPs to keep records on user activities to protect us against pedophiles. Pedophiles are simply being used as a smoke screen for controlling all of us. We are playing right into the hands of terrorists. We have changed the way we think and used terrorism as an excuse to push towards a police state where powers of the Executive Branch are maximized. If we are not careful we may be facing the first signs of the fall of an empire. Wake up and smell the coffee! This great country cannot be allowed the path of self-destruction in the name of "pretextion"! I bet money that I am at risk simply posting this message!
Posted by matt_parker (52 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The Burning Bush has Spoken
This administration talks the talk of freedom but it betrays its true values in its walk. While we are shedding blood for freedom overseas, freedom is being dismantled here. Bush seems to be willing to sacrifice our hard won freedoms at the alter of security. Without the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, the right wing christian zealots would set their warped moral doctrines into secular law, thus achieving a defacto conversion of all US citizens to their form of christianity. They would then use the double edge sword of technology derived information to assure compliance to their unjust law. The right to privacy allows citizens to escape government and mob persecution. The same persecution that has wreaked havoc on millions of humans under the Hitlers, Stalins and Saddams of the world. May Congress have the wisdom to see through the Bush administration's grab for power!
Posted by SpiritMatter (68 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.