By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
August 3, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national
security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President
Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign
terrorists without court warrants.
The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the
bill.
Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up
the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response
to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before
leaving for vacation this weekend.
The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House
to quickly follow suit.
The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the
essential tools they need to protect our nation," said
White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that
this legislation become law as quickly as possible."
Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted
by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal
that would have required a court review to begin within 10
days.
The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded eavesdropping authority
for six months. The temporary powers give Congress time to
hammer out a more comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval
for a permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers begin
their monthlong break.
The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require
60 votes for passage.
Senate Republicans, aided by Director of National Intelligence
Mike McConnell, said the update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, or FISA, would at least temporarily close
gaps in the nation's security system.
"Al-Qaida is not going on vacation this month," said
Sen. Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And
we can't either until we know we've done our duty to the American
people."
In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a proposal
that called for stricter court oversight of the way the government
would ensure its spying would not target Americans.
"The rule of law is still critical in this country," Rep.
John Tierney, D-Mass., said before the losing the mostly party-line
218-207 vote that fell short of two-thirds majority needed
for passage. "It is exactly when the government thinks
that it can be the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial
system to stand in and strike the balance."
"We can have security and our civil liberties," Tierney
said.
Current law requires court review of government surveillance
of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically
address the government's ability to intercept messages believed
to come from foreigners overseas.
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the
law after a recent ruling by the special FISA court that barred
the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose
messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers,
including Internet sites.
Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from
tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded
the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it
begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted.
By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that
demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush
administration wanted. It requires:
-Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The administration
relented to Democrats leery of Gonzales by adding McConnell
to the oversight.
-FISA Court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan
had called for court review to begin immediately and conclude
within a month of the surveillance starting
-The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to
craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House initially
wanted the bill to be permanent.
Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said "provides a weak and
practically nonexistent court review."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his colleagues
for bending to the administration's will.
"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member
of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold
said. "We make the policy not the executive branch."
Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged
that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.
"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said
Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American
Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be
manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly
taking a great deal of it, when they're in control it's mind-boggling."
It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
would endorse the Senate bill after days of rejecting White
House offers.
"I hope that there are no attacks before we are able
to effectively update this important act," said Rep. Lamar
Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Bush has said he would reject any bill that his intelligence
director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."
"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats
to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national
security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror
and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters Friday
morning. "Time is short."
Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session
from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by
Harry Truman.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the administration plan "more
likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks
by those who want to do us harm."
(This version CORRECTS that under the Senate bill, court review
would begin within 10 days of start of surveillance, not 15
days. It also deletes an erroneous reference to a four-month
limit to the surveillance authority.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
