House Panels Race Against Each Other to Reform NSA Spying

In an apparent turf war, two House committees have scheduled markups a day apart later this week for competing bills that seek to curtail the government’s spy programs.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 25: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) (R), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) speak about immigration during a news conference on Capitol Hill, April 25, 2013 in Washington, DC. The news conference was held to discuss immigration control issues that are before Congress. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
National Journal
Dustin Volz
May 5, 2014, 12:50 p.m.

After months of in­ac­tion, Con­gress is sud­denly bar­rel­ing ahead with pro­posed re­forms to the gov­ern­ment’s sur­veil­lance pro­grams, as two House pan­els duel to get their pre­ferred bills out of com­mit­tee and onto the floor.

The House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee an­nounced Monday that it would bring an amended ver­sion of its stalled anti-NSA bill up for a vote Wed­nes­day. Just hours later, the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee re­spon­ded, an­noun­cing it had slated a markup of its own anti-spy­ing bill for a closed ses­sion Thursday.

The Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee’s USA Free­dom Act would ef­fect­ively end the bulk col­lec­tion of tele­phone metadata. It’s sup­por­ted by pri­vacy and civil-liber­ties groups that see it as the best op­tion to be in­tro­duced in Con­gress thus far, though the amended com­prom­ise re­leased Monday is less sweep­ing than the ori­gin­al.

One tech lob­by­ist noted con­cern that a pro­vi­sion that would have al­lowed com­pan­ies to dis­close to cus­tom­ers more in­form­a­tion about gov­ern­ment data re­quests has been dropped. In ad­di­tion, an ex­tern­al spe­cial ad­voc­ate that would over­see the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court would no longer be se­lec­ted by the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board. In­stead, the court’s judges would des­ig­nate five “amicus curi­ae” who pos­sess ap­pro­pri­ate se­cur­ity clear­ances.

“The de­tails still need to be hammered out, but the [amended Free­dom Act] bill is cer­tainly bet­ter than the one that the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee will be con­sid­er­ing this week, which is a non-starter,” said Laura Murphy, dir­ect­or of the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on’s le­gis­lat­ive of­fice in Wash­ing­ton, in a state­ment.

The In­tel­li­gence pan­el’s FISA Trans­par­ency and Mod­ern­iz­a­tion Act would ush­er in some re­forms favored by the same groups but it does not go as far, as it would not­ably al­low the gov­ern­ment to make phone com­pan­ies turn over metadata re­cords even be­fore the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court is­sued an ap­prov­ing or­der. It is favored more by back­ers of a a strong na­tion­al se­cur­ity ap­par­at­us.

Amid the policy dif­fer­ences, the com­pet­ing bills un­der­score a be­hind-the-scenes jur­is­dic­tion­al feud pit­ting some of the NSA’s most vo­cal crit­ics on the Ju­di­ciary pan­el against some of its long­time de­fend­ers on the In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee.

That rup­ture first emerged after Pres­id­ent Obama in March spe­cified how he in­tends to re­form the NSA. Days later, In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­man Mike Ro­gers, a Michigan Re­pub­lic­an, and Dutch Rup­pers­ber­ger, the pan­el’s top Demo­crat, in­tro­duced their bill, which closely ad­heres to Obama’s pro­pos­al. That bill was quickly re­ferred to the In­tel­li­gence pan­el for con­sid­er­a­tion by the House par­lia­ment­ari­an.

But some Ju­di­ciary mem­bers and staffers cried foul, say­ing that mat­ters in­volving the leg­al au­thor­ity of the in­tel­li­gence com­munity should — and nor­mally do — fall un­der their primary jur­is­dic­tion. The move was seen as an in­ten­tion­al at­tempt to cut the largely anti-sur­veil­lance pan­el out of a de­bate over how to re­form the NSA’s pro­gram that col­lects bulk tele­phone data.

Rep. Jer­rold Nadler, a Demo­crat, is­sued a state­ment at the time say­ing that “the House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee must be the primary com­mit­tee at the cen­ter of this re­form.”

An In­tel­li­gence pan­el aide said plans to move ahead with ithe FISA Trans­par­ency bill have been in the works for weeks and that the schedul­ing of the markup was not in dir­ect re­sponse to the Ju­di­ciary’s sched­ule.

Whatever the polit­ics, two bills aim­ing to curb the NSA’s con­tro­ver­sial sur­veil­lance tac­tics are sud­denly ad­van­cing through the House, al­most a year after Ed­ward Snowden’s ini­tial leaks began to sur­face. Pri­vacy ad­voc­ates see the Free­dom Act as a pre­ferred op­tion, but the FISA Trans­par­ency bill more closely aligns with what the pres­id­ent wants. The Free­dom Act cur­rently has 143 co­spon­sors; FISA Trans­par­ency has 11.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has sponsored a com­pan­ion ver­sion of the Free­dom Act in his cham­ber, but it has yet to gain much trac­tion there. No com­pan­ion bill to FISA Trans­par­ency cur­rently ex­ists in the Sen­ate.

What We're Following See More »
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
13 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
×