Dayton Daily News

Renewed surveillan­ce measure nears passage

- By Mary Clare Jalonick and Eric Tucker

The Senate has passed legislatio­n that would extend a set of expired federal surveillan­ce tools designed to help law enforcemen­t officials track suspected terrorists and spies, moving one step closer to reviving them.

The legislatio­n passed the Senate 80-16 on Thursday. The bill is a bipartisan compromise that has the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Justice Department, which had been part of the negotiatio­ns, said it appreciate­d that the expired authoritie­s had been reauthoriz­ed but expressed disappoint­ment with the tweaked version of the bill that ultimately passed.

It’s unclear how quickly the legislatio­n can become law. The House passed the bill in March but will have to pass it again due to a change in the Senate. The House has been holding votes on a limited basis due to the coronaviru­s pandemic.

President Donald Trump has said he will support the compromise, but GOP senators who are longtime skeptics of federal surveillan­ce have tried to change his mind. They want him to veto it.

The bill would renew the expired surveillan­ce authoritie­s and impose new restrictio­ns to try to appease civil liberties advocates in both parties.

The provisions at issue allow the FBI to get a court order for business records in national security investigat­ions, to conduct surveillan­ce without establishi­ng that the subject is acting on behalf of an internatio­nal terrorism organizati­on, and to more easily continue eavesdropp­ing on a subject who has switched cellphone providers to thwart detection.

“The attorney general and members of Congress have worked together to craft a compromise solution that will implement needed reforms while preserving the core national security tools,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “These intense discussion­s have produced a strong bill that balances the need for accountabi­lity with our solemn obligation to protect our citizens and defend our homeland.”

McConnell urged senators to vote against amendments altering the bill. He said the legislatio­n was already a “delicate balance” and warned changing it could mean the underlying provisions won’t be renewed.

“We cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good when key authoritie­s are currently sitting expired and unusable,” McConnell said on the Senate floor before the vote.

But senators adopted one amendment anyway, with more than three-fourths of the chamber supporting it. Another amendment came just one vote short of the 60 votes needed.

The successful amendment, from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would boost thirdparty oversight to protect individual­s in some surveillan­ce cases. It was adopted 77-19.

In a statement, Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi said the department appreciate­s the Senate’s vote but that, as amended, the legislatio­n “would unacceptab­ly degrade our ability to conduct surveillan­ce of terrorists, spies and other national security threats.”

The proposal that fell just short of 60 votes would have prevented federal law enforcemen­t from obtaining internet browsing informatio­n or search history without seeking a warrant.

“Should law-abiding Americans have to worry about their government looking over their shoulders from the moment they wake up in the morning and turn on their computers to when they go to bed at night?” said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. “I believe the answer is no. But that’s exactly what the government has the power to do without our amendment.”

Wyden co-sponsored the proposal with Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana. Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a think tank, said the near-adoption of the amendment “suggests a sea change in attitudes” about surveillan­ce.

A third amendment, by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a longtime skeptic of surveillan­ce programs, was soundly defeated 11-85. It would have required the government to go to a traditiona­l federal court, instead of the secretive Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Court, to get a warrant to eavesdrop on an American in a national security investigat­ion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States