Top House Republicans and Democrats joined forces Wednesday to demand major restrictions on the country’s chief foreign intelligence communications snooping law, clearing a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would require federal agents to get a court’s permission if they want to use information in a criminal probe.
It also calls for the release of more information about Americans ensnared in the data collection.
The bill, sponsored by committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and ranking Democrat Rep. John Conyers Jr., was approved on a 27-8 vote, with those in both parties saying it was time Congress imposed more oversight and control of the intelligence community.
“The government will owe both Congress and the public a never-before-seen level of detail about how they use this statute,” said Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat. “Have we accomplished every reform I had hoped to see? We have not. But this legislation represents real, achievable, substantive reform.”
The fight is over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the government to collect information from foreign sources located outside the U.S.
No American, and no person on U.S. soil, is to be targeted. But if a foreign target is talking to an American, those communications can be collected — and in some cases the American can be “unmasked,” meaning their name is attached to communications.
Section 702 is due to expire at the end of this year, and the intelligence community has asked for a full and permanent reauthorization.
Both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, though, are determined to keep a time limit and impose new controls. The question is how far lawmakers want to go.
The House Judiciary Committee bill would allow collection to continue and would let agents peruse the data for anti-terrorism purposes, but would impose new controls before the communications could be perused for criminal investigations.
The number of Americans whose data is scooped up would have to be reported to Congress, as would those who are unmasked.
Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat, both wanted to go further, requiring a warrant in all cases to search about a U.S. person unless it was an emergency.
The committee rejected that proposal on a 21-12 vote, upsetting civil rights advocates who said stiffer protections are needed.
Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said there are too many exceptions in the current bill, such as for searches returning foreign intelligence information from a query. She said that was so broad a category that anything could be covered.
“Existing law provides no justification for allowing the government to search for Americans’ communications for ’foreign intelligence’ purposes without a warrant. Yet this is precisely what this bill would allow. We urge Congress to remedy this problem as this bill advances,” she said.
In the Senate, meanwhile, the leading proposal tacks more toward the intelligence community’s desire.
That bill, which cleared the Senate intelligence committee on a 12-3 vote in closed session, would extend Section 702 through 2025, or two years longer than the House Judiciary Committee’s legislation.
The Senate bill also would allow the intelligence community to continue collecting data on targets even when they weren’t directly involved in sending or receiving the communications, civil liberties groups said.
A number of senators are pushing for more protections before renewing Section 702.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, and Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, have offered a plan that would require a search warrant for any perusal of Americans’ communications.
And Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican, and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said in a statement Wednesday they’re working on a version that would try to match the progress of the House Judiciary Committee bill.
“This bill is part of a promising, bipartisan effort to provide some long-overdue reforms to this surveillance authority,” they said.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.