The House Just Passed a Bill to End Mass NSA Spying. But Will It Really Change Anything?

The lower chamber approved Thursday the USA Freedom Act despite a sudden uprising from tech companies and privacy groups that say it leaves loopholes open for intelligence agencies to exploit.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
May 22, 2014, 7:05 a.m.

Nearly a year after Ed­ward Snowden’s leaks blew the lid off the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s sweep­ing spy­ing pro­grams, Con­gress has taken its first sig­ni­fic­ant step to halt the gov­ern­ment’s mass col­lec­tion of Amer­ic­ans’ phone re­cords.

With bi­par­tis­an sup­port, the House on Thursday passed the USA Free­dom Act, a White House-backed bill that its sup­port­ers say will end the gov­ern­ment’s in­dis­crim­in­ate bulk col­lec­tion of Amer­ic­ans’ phone re­cords. It cleared the cham­ber on a 303-121 vote.

Tech com­pan­ies and pri­vacy ad­voc­ates, however, are sound­ing the alarm about the bill, which un­der­went sub­stan­tial el­ev­enth-hour changes this week. They say it con­tains a num­ber of loop­holes and vaguely defined pro­vi­sions that the gov­ern­ment could use to main­tain its cur­rent spy powers. The meas­ure will now move to the Sen­ate for re­view, where power­ful law­makers have also noted con­cerns about the House’s ver­sion.

Un­der the le­gis­la­tion, the gov­ern­ment would no longer re­tain bulk col­lec­tion of phone metadata — the num­bers and timestamps of calls but not their ac­tu­al con­tents. In­stead, phone com­pan­ies will keep those re­cords and be re­quired to hand them over to the NSA and oth­er in­tel­li­gence agen­cies only after the gov­ern­ment re­ceives ap­prov­al for each data search from the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court, ex­cept in emer­gency cases.

The meas­ure also re­duces from three to two the num­ber of “hops,” or de­grees of sep­ar­a­tion, away from a sus­pec­ted tar­get the NSA can jump when ana­lyz­ing com­mu­nic­a­tions. The amended lan­guage, however, dropped a pro­vi­sion that would have al­lowed com­pan­ies to dis­close the level of sur­veil­lance or­ders re­ceived un­der Sec­tion 702 of the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act, and it co­di­fies a two-year delay for mak­ing some sur­veil­lance or­ders pub­lic.

But the new ver­sion of the bill that emerged Tues­day — the product of more than a week of back­room ne­go­ti­ations among House lead­er­ship, the White House, and the in­tel­li­gence com­munity — en­dured a thor­ough lash­ing from tech gi­ants such as Google and Face­book and a num­ber of pri­vacy watch­dogs such as the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on and the Open Tech­no­logy In­sti­tute.

Draw­ing par­tic­u­lar con­sterna­tion is the bill’s altered defin­i­tion of “spe­cif­ic se­lec­tion term,” which provides a frame­work for how in­tel­li­gence agen­cies would be re­quired to define their de­sired tar­gets when con­duct­ing a search of phone re­cords. An earli­er draft, in­clud­ing one passed two weeks ago by the Ju­di­ciary and In­tel­li­gence com­mit­tees, defined se­lect­ors as “a per­son, ac­count or en­tity.” The new bill tacks on words like “ad­dress” and “device” to the list and con­tains lan­guage that crit­ics ar­gue could be in­ter­preted loosely.

In ad­di­tion to wor­ries about phone re­cords, the Re­form Gov­ern­ment Sur­veil­lance Co­ali­tion — whose mem­bers in­clude Google, Face­book, Apple, and oth­ers — ex­pressed con­cern late Wed­nes­day that the bill could also open “an un­ac­cept­able loop­hole that could en­able the bulk col­lec­tion of In­ter­net users’ data.”

Rep. Justin Amash, one of the Free­dom Act’s ori­gin­al co­spon­sors and a vo­cal crit­ic of NSA spy­ing, an­nounced Thursday morn­ing he was vot­ing no on the meas­ure be­cause it “co­di­fied a large-scale, un­con­sti­tu­tion­al do­mest­ic spy­ing pro­gram” and vi­ol­ated the Fourth Amend­ment.

While the lan­guage would pro­hib­it a tele­phone com­pany from hand­ing over all phone re­cords to the gov­ern­ment, Amash said, it was “so weakened in be­hind-the-scenes ne­go­ti­ations over the last week that the gov­ern­ment still can or­der — without prob­able cause — a tele­phone com­pany to turn over all call re­cords for ‘area code 616’ or for ‘phone calls made east of the Mis­sis­sippi.’”

Even the bill’s au­thor, Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner, said, “I wish this bill did more.”

“To my col­leagues who lament changes, I agree with you,” the Wis­con­sin Re­pub­lic­an, who also au­thored the post-9/11 USA Pat­ri­ot Act, said. “To pri­vacy groups who are up­set about lost pro­vi­sions, I share your dis­ap­point­ment. The ne­go­ti­ations for this bill were in­tense, and we had to make com­prom­ises, but this bill still de­serves sup­port.”

Reps. Zoe Lof­gren and Rush Holt echoed sim­il­ar con­cerns dur­ing morn­ing de­bate, say­ing that the bill did not guar­an­tee enough pri­vacy safe­guards. They voted no, as did Reps. Anna Eshoo and Dor­is Mat­sui, both Cali­for­nia Demo­crats with ties to Sil­ic­on Val­ley. In all, 51 Re­pub­lic­ans and 70 Demo­crats op­posed the “watered-down” Free­dom Act, in­clud­ing sev­er­al mem­bers of the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee that un­an­im­ously passed a less amended ver­sion earli­er this month.

The Free­dom Act was in­tro­duced by Sensen­bren­ner last Oc­to­ber and racked up more than 140 co­spon­sors. It was widely em­braced by NSA re­formers as the best op­tion from Con­gress to cur­tail the gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance ap­par­at­us, which has un­der­gone un­pre­ced­en­ted scru­tiny in the wake of the Snowden leaks.

In Janu­ary, Pres­id­ent Obama an­nounced that his ad­min­is­tra­tion would re­form the way the NSA col­lects and stores tele­phone metadata of vir­tu­ally all Amer­ic­ans. The pres­id­ent also prom­ised fur­ther trans­par­ency meas­ures and said he wanted to re­store the na­tion’s trust in the gov­ern­ment’s in­tel­li­gence agen­cies.

But Obama also said he could not act without first get­ting a bill from Con­gress that closely re­sembled his pre­ferred changes. On Wed­nes­day, the ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cially an­nounced its sup­port for the House-passed Free­dom Act.

Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Chair­man Patrick Leahy said his pan­el will con­sider the le­gis­la­tion next month be­fore it heads to the floor. Leahy, who au­thored the Sen­ate ver­sion of the ori­gin­al Free­dom Act, ex­pressed a num­ber of con­cerns about the House-passed bill, such as a lack of re­forms re­lated to na­tion­al se­cur­ity let­ters, a strong spe­cial ad­voc­ate to work with­in the FISA Court, and ad­di­tion­al trans­par­ency meas­ures. 

“Today’s ac­tion in the House con­tin­ues the bi­par­tis­an ef­fort to re­store Amer­ic­ans’ civil liber­ties,” Leahy said in a state­ment im­me­di­ately after the vote. “But I was dis­ap­poin­ted that the le­gis­la­tion passed today does not in­clude some of the mean­ing­ful re­forms con­tained in the ori­gin­al USA Free­dom Act.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.