This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/house-passes-fbi-surveillance-bill.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| House Passes Bill Preserving F.B.I. Surveillance Powers | |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| WASHINGTON — The House passed a bipartisan adjustment of key surveillance laws on Wednesday, cobbling together an unusual coalition of lawmakers to approve some new privacy protections for Americans and extend three expiring F.B.I. tools for investigating terrorism and espionage. | WASHINGTON — The House passed a bipartisan adjustment of key surveillance laws on Wednesday, cobbling together an unusual coalition of lawmakers to approve some new privacy protections for Americans and extend three expiring F.B.I. tools for investigating terrorism and espionage. |
| The vote appeared to be a breakthrough after weeks of negotiations in both the House and the Senate to prevent the surveillance tools from expiring this weekend and to address abuses identified in F.B.I. applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser. Though civil libertarians in both parties opposed it as a half-measure that fell short of the kind of sweeping protections they favor, the bill passed with strong Democratic and Republican support, 278 to 136. | |
| “It is by no means a perfect bill,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said he would have liked further changes, “but this bill includes important reforms.” | “It is by no means a perfect bill,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said he would have liked further changes, “but this bill includes important reforms.” |
| In the Senate, Republican leaders were trying to line up an expedited Thursday vote, but their aides said it would depend on whether the bill’s opponents would use Senate rules to slow down passage. A handful of senators have long championed broader surveillance reforms, like Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and argue that the House changes leave Americans’ privacy at risk of intrusion by government investigators. | In the Senate, Republican leaders were trying to line up an expedited Thursday vote, but their aides said it would depend on whether the bill’s opponents would use Senate rules to slow down passage. A handful of senators have long championed broader surveillance reforms, like Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and argue that the House changes leave Americans’ privacy at risk of intrusion by government investigators. |
| Even if they stall the bill, once it does make it to a Senate vote, a similar bipartisan coalition of lawmakers most likely will amount to the 60 votes needed to overcome objections. | Even if they stall the bill, once it does make it to a Senate vote, a similar bipartisan coalition of lawmakers most likely will amount to the 60 votes needed to overcome objections. |
| Congress was set to leave town on Thursday for a weeklong recess, and it was not clear how quickly the Senate could act — and whether it would allow the expiring F.B.I. tools to temporarily lapse. | Congress was set to leave town on Thursday for a weeklong recess, and it was not clear how quickly the Senate could act — and whether it would allow the expiring F.B.I. tools to temporarily lapse. |
| Republican House officials involved in the negotiations said they had assurances that President Trump would sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk, though they conceded its opponents could still try to sway him to object and ask for further changes. The president has long nursed theories that the F.B.I. spied on his campaign and at one point suggested to lawmakers that he would not reauthorize the expiring provisions without broader changes. | Republican House officials involved in the negotiations said they had assurances that President Trump would sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk, though they conceded its opponents could still try to sway him to object and ask for further changes. The president has long nursed theories that the F.B.I. spied on his campaign and at one point suggested to lawmakers that he would not reauthorize the expiring provisions without broader changes. |
| The deal came together just 24 hours before Wednesday’s vote, the product of an unusual set of allies who just a month ago were at war over Mr. Trump’s impeachment, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi; the top House Republican, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California; Mr. Nadler; Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee; and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a Republican firebrand. | The deal came together just 24 hours before Wednesday’s vote, the product of an unusual set of allies who just a month ago were at war over Mr. Trump’s impeachment, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi; the top House Republican, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California; Mr. Nadler; Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee; and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a Republican firebrand. |
| Politically, the bill represents Congress’s policy response to an inspector general report that found numerous errors and omissions by the F.B.I. in applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, during the Russia investigation. The changes to FISA in the bill would build on an overhaul that the F.B.I., working with the FISA court, has already made to its own procedures. | Politically, the bill represents Congress’s policy response to an inspector general report that found numerous errors and omissions by the F.B.I. in applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, during the Russia investigation. The changes to FISA in the bill would build on an overhaul that the F.B.I., working with the FISA court, has already made to its own procedures. |
| Substantively, the bill is driven by the Sunday expiration of three laws the F.B.I. uses in national security investigations. While the laws did not apply to the Page wiretap applications, they have been swept up in the debate because both civil libertarians and Trump allies see legislation to extend them as a vehicle for a broader FISA overhaul. | Substantively, the bill is driven by the Sunday expiration of three laws the F.B.I. uses in national security investigations. While the laws did not apply to the Page wiretap applications, they have been swept up in the debate because both civil libertarians and Trump allies see legislation to extend them as a vehicle for a broader FISA overhaul. |
| The measure would extend the expiring laws, which do things like permit the F.B.I. to obtain business records in a terrorism or espionage investigation, while terminating legal authority for an expensive, dysfunctional and defunct National Security Agency system that had allowed that agency’s counterterrorism analysts to swiftly gain access to logs of Americans’ phone calls. | The measure would extend the expiring laws, which do things like permit the F.B.I. to obtain business records in a terrorism or espionage investigation, while terminating legal authority for an expensive, dysfunctional and defunct National Security Agency system that had allowed that agency’s counterterrorism analysts to swiftly gain access to logs of Americans’ phone calls. |
| The bill would also make some changes to the FISA court and traditional FISA wiretaps, revisions that some national security hawks have viewed with skepticism but civil libertarians say fall short. | The bill would also make some changes to the FISA court and traditional FISA wiretaps, revisions that some national security hawks have viewed with skepticism but civil libertarians say fall short. |
| For example, the proposal would expand when FISA judges — who normally hear only from the Justice Department when weighing surveillance applications — should appoint an outsider to critique the government’s arguments. Under the bill, outsiders should be appointed when an application “presents exceptional concerns” about First Amendment rights, which could apply to investigations touching on political campaigns or religious activity. | For example, the proposal would expand when FISA judges — who normally hear only from the Justice Department when weighing surveillance applications — should appoint an outsider to critique the government’s arguments. Under the bill, outsiders should be appointed when an application “presents exceptional concerns” about First Amendment rights, which could apply to investigations touching on political campaigns or religious activity. |
| Some House lawmakers have wanted to require outside critics any time an American is a surveillance target, no matter how routine. The Justice Department objected that that was unnecessary and would have far greater operational consequences. | Some House lawmakers have wanted to require outside critics any time an American is a surveillance target, no matter how routine. The Justice Department objected that that was unnecessary and would have far greater operational consequences. |
| The bill would also make clear that the government cannot use a FISA business records order to collect information, like cellphone location data, that in a criminal investigation requires a search warrant, which has a higher legal standard. | The bill would also make clear that the government cannot use a FISA business records order to collect information, like cellphone location data, that in a criminal investigation requires a search warrant, which has a higher legal standard. |
| And it would expand criminal penalties for misusing FISA, raising from five to eight years the prison sentence for engaging in electronic surveillance without following its procedures. | And it would expand criminal penalties for misusing FISA, raising from five to eight years the prison sentence for engaging in electronic surveillance without following its procedures. |
| Still, the agreement stops short of making a change that many privacy groups have advocated: letting defense lawyers read FISA wiretap applications if their clients are prosecuted on the basis of evidence derived from such wiretaps, as defense lawyers can do in ordinary criminal cases. | Still, the agreement stops short of making a change that many privacy groups have advocated: letting defense lawyers read FISA wiretap applications if their clients are prosecuted on the basis of evidence derived from such wiretaps, as defense lawyers can do in ordinary criminal cases. |
| Attorney General William P. Barr gave his stamp of approval to the package publicly on Wednesday, saying that the bipartisan agreement struck the right balance between national security and privacy protections. | Attorney General William P. Barr gave his stamp of approval to the package publicly on Wednesday, saying that the bipartisan agreement struck the right balance between national security and privacy protections. |
| But in striking a deal that brings together the middle of both parties, House leaders drew swift condemnation from civil libertarians on the left and the right who sense the fallout from the Trump campaign spying case as a rare opening to make more expansive changes to the surveillance apparatus. | But in striking a deal that brings together the middle of both parties, House leaders drew swift condemnation from civil libertarians on the left and the right who sense the fallout from the Trump campaign spying case as a rare opening to make more expansive changes to the surveillance apparatus. |
| On the left, the leaders of the House Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, condemned the bill as “insufficient to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American public.” Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat also pushing for greater protections, said the bill left in place too many provisions exposing Americans’ communications and other data. | On the left, the leaders of the House Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, condemned the bill as “insufficient to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American public.” Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat also pushing for greater protections, said the bill left in place too many provisions exposing Americans’ communications and other data. |
| “For example, most Americans know their web browsing history and search queries contain private, personal information, and yet this reauthorization allows the intelligence community to seize that sensitive data without a warrant,” she said. | “For example, most Americans know their web browsing history and search queries contain private, personal information, and yet this reauthorization allows the intelligence community to seize that sensitive data without a warrant,” she said. |
| The right was split on the bill, as well. Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, staked out opposition on Wednesday, despite the role of Mr. Jordan, one of the group’s founders. | The right was split on the bill, as well. Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, staked out opposition on Wednesday, despite the role of Mr. Jordan, one of the group’s founders. |
| “Some of the abuses that were revealed in the I.G. review of the 2016 Russian interference issues, I think those are going to happen again,” he said in an interview. | “Some of the abuses that were revealed in the I.G. review of the 2016 Russian interference issues, I think those are going to happen again,” he said in an interview. |