GovernmentExecutive.com

House Democrats Wednesday beat back Republican efforts to change legislation aimed at reining in the Bush administration's spying activities, including denying retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly assisted the government.

The House Judiciary and Intelligence committees both approved the legislation to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Republicans argued that the bill would create burdensome requirements and give constitutional protections to suspected foreign terrorists. They also said the bill does not give the director of National Intelligence what he told Congress is needed.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee proposed substituting the bill with one written by the Bush administration, but the effort was rejected by a party-line vote. Republicans on the Intelligence Committee offered an amendment that would grant retroactive liability protections to telecommunications companies that allegedly assisted the administration with spying operations since 2001. But that amendment, too, was defeated. The Judiciary Committee also defeated a similar amendment.

The Judiciary Committee also adopted three key amendments including one from Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., which would improve court oversight of the government's compliance with secret FISA court orders.

Another amendment offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, would require the administration to get a FISA warrant whenever a "significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States" rather than waiting until someone formally becomes a target. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., offered an amendment to the bill's auditing and reporting requirements that calls for more information about data being collected in particular instances.

House Democratic leaders received what aides described as a surprisingly low level of push back from members at a closed door caucus discussion of the bill Tuesday night. But Democrats grappled with some differences over how involved the secret FISA court should be in overseeing the administration's spying activities.

Nadler, who heads the Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee, said some Democrats are apprehensive about the leadership's bill, especially since groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union do not fully back it. But he said it is the best option available. "You're not going to get anything any stronger through, under any circumstance," Nadler said.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., reiterated the Democratic leadership's stance that the bill strikes the right balance between civil liberties and national security. He added that the telecommunication liability issue can not be properly considered until lawmakers know what actions they are being asked to protect.

Some moderate Blue Dog Democrats, however, are pushing a potential compromise on the immunity matter, arguing for the adoption of a statute of limitations on potential crimes.

President Bush on Wednesday said he will not sign new FISA legislation if it fails to grant the government sufficient power to keep closed a "gap in intelligence" that existed before the statute was updated this summer.

In a sharply worded statement at the White House, Bush demanded that Congress make permanent the temporary FISA law enacted in August, which expires in February. Bush said it "strengthened our ability to collect foreign intelligence about terrorists overseas." Bush said the legislation must also provide retroactive liability protections to telecom companies.

Keith Koffler and Andrew Noyes contributed to this story.

COMMENTS

• Unfortunately, the Democrats caved in and gave Bush mostly what he wanted in what is being called a compromise. The little guy loses again while the Democrats show that the only thing that changed in the last elections was nothing. James Posted October 18, 2007 12:58 PM
• Interesting. First off, James is right. Bravo and well put. Second, as one article I read noted, the methodology of calls entering US jurisdiction has changed. In the past, most overseas calls came in via satellite or radio waves; now most come in via fiber optic trunks. Most stateside calls go through the air via cell phones. If this administration was primarily concerned with intercepting overseas traffic, would it not be relatively easy to tap into the fiber optics prior to hitting the commercial trunk systems at the coast; and/or intercept satellite communications? Why all this need to monitor the interior’s communications? When will they finally admit that it is NOT because of terrorism that they wish to monitor ALL communications? With a law such as the FISA stands today, President Nixon would never have gotten into trouble. He would need only contact an analyst at Langley, have him or her perform a few word/line searches in their databases, and report the results. Thirdly, “Republicans argued … the bill does not give the director of National Intelligence what he told Congress is needed.” And “Bush demanded that Congress make permanent the temporary FISA law enacted in August” Well, did Rummy give the generals what they needed to go to war? Good intel, sufficient manpower and equipment? Nope, he reigned in the numbers of deployed by approximately 40K; well shy of the necessary manpower. Instead he continually revised the military command strategy until it failed under its own weight. Every time I hear this, it’s like … “You’re supposed to give me what I tell you I need.” Do they expect to hear “And to whom do you wish me to sign this blank check over to?” Sometimes I think that American Constitutional History 101 (with an appendix on the Bill of Rights) should be a prerequisite for holding public office; well, that and military service… No one should be allowed to send someone else off to die unless they truly understand the impact of their actions. At least the POTUS’s last opponent could find the Forward Base Ops area on a map. To wax biblical, “And this too shall pass.” Tip off Posted October 17, 2007 12:37 PM
• First off, the FISA law does not need an overhaul. It only needs small tweaking to update it so it can include new 21st century technologies, which is what Bush and I believe Cheney have said in the past. This administration seems to be hell-bent on overhauling and rebuilding things that don't need that level of 'fixing'. And the biggest question is why give the telecoms retroactive immunity if they did nothing wrong? James Posted October 17, 2007 9:07 AM