USA Freedom Act 101: How far did House go to rein in the NSA?
The House passed a sweeping bill Thursday to end the NSA's bulk data collection of Americans' phone metadata. The USA Freedom Act had bipartisan support and White House backing. You'll want the answers to these five questions.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia (r.), Rep. John Conyers (D) of Michigan (l.), and other members of the panel speak about the USA Freedom Act on Capitol Hill Thursday. The measure passed the House by a bipartisan vote, 303 to 171.
Yuri Gripas/Reuters
WASHINGTON
The US House,听responding to the outcry over massive government antiterrorism surveillance of Americans鈥� phone records, voted Thursday to end the bulk collection of such data.
The USA Freedom Act passed with strong bipartisan support, 303 to 171, though last-minute changes negotiated with the White House caused many civil liberties groups, technology companies such as Google and Facebook, and lawmakers from both parties to withdraw their backing from the 鈥渨atered down鈥� legislation.
The act is the most significant scaling down of US surveillance in more than three decades, according to its sponsors, and it now heads to the Senate for consideration. President Obama urged Congress in January to draft surveillance reform legislation, and on Wednesday, the White House endorsed the Freedom Act. Here are answers to key questions about the legislation.
What does the Freedom Act do?
听It would end the US government鈥檚 bulk collection of Americans鈥� phone records 鈥� phone numbers, time of calls, and duration of calls (though not content) 鈥� that was exposed by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden a year ago. Such information would reside, instead, with phone companies and be kept for 18 months 鈥� the firms' current normal practice. Other personal data 鈥� financial, medical, and even firearms purchases 鈥� would also be off-limits to government collection.
The government would听now need to obtain, on a case-by-case basis, a court order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before it could search phone records for antiterrorism purposes. Under emergencies, however, the government could have access to data for up to seven days before getting court approval. The intelligence court must also publish its most significant opinions, providing a new level of transparency for the public.
Why do critics say it鈥檚 watered down?
They are angered by recent closed-door negotiations with the White House that changed the original bill as approved unanimously by both the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. One complaint is over the dropping of an independent advocate who would have represented the public鈥檚 interests before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Another is what鈥檚 being described as a 鈥渓oophole鈥� that can still allow mass data searching. In the original bill, the government would have had to make limited, 鈥渟pecific selection鈥� search requests to the court based on certain criteria. The 鈥渟pecific selection鈥� was defined as a 鈥減erson, entity, or account.鈥�
To prevent the USA Freedom Act from interfering with more routine investigations, the White House had the definition broadened: Specific selection is now a 鈥渄iscrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address or device.鈥� The concern is that 鈥渟uch as鈥� could mean anything: It could mean an entire Area Code, it could mean the entire East Coast.
The loophole is big enough to 鈥渞un a truck through,鈥� complained Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D) of California, as she spoke against the measure on the House floor Thursday.
What do supporters say about these criticisms?
They acknowledge that the bill is not perfect, and even key sponsors of the bill are unhappy with the changes. 鈥淭he critics are correct鈥� about the squishy definition, said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. But, he countered, 鈥渢hat concern is largely theoretical.鈥�
If the government wants to make policy changes, it would have to report the classified change to Congress within one day and make an unclassified report to the public within 45 days. 鈥淚f the government tries to expand this authority, the public will know it in short order,鈥� said Mr. Conyers.
Bottom line, say supporters, the Freedom Act would end bulk collection by the government, and if this bill does not become law, the government will continue to sweep up personal phone records day by day. 鈥淒on鈥檛 let the perfect become the enemy of the good,鈥� was the refrain among Democratic and Republican supporters.
What happens next?
The ball is now in the Senate鈥檚 court. Majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada says he wants Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont and Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D) of California to review the Freedom Act and report back. Senator Feinstein says she is willing to go along with a similar bill,听according to the Associated Press. Senator Leahy has problems with it, including the lack of an independent public advocate in the court (the House bill allows for only 鈥渇riend of the court鈥� briefs). House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R) of Virginia urged the Senate to take up the bill promptly.
This Congress is hardly known for bipartisanship. Why did Democrats and Republicans agree?
After the revelations of Mr. Snowden, Democrats concerned about protecting civil liberties found common cause with small-government Republicans. The two groups worked together to find a balance with security-minded members of both parties and the White House. What emerged was this carefully and intensely negotiated bill. The House bill would have had even more support, but some lawmakers switched their votes to "no" as they realized it would pass by a healthy margin.听