House, Senate clash over new intelligence bill

Families of 9/11 victims and advocates for civil liberties have spoken out against the House version of the new intelligence legislation. NPR's Morning Edition reported this week that the families want the legislation on President's Bush's desk for him to sign before the election.

In early October the Senate overwhelmingly passed a version of the bill that was much more in line with the recommendations from the 9/11 comission. The House version, however, included these additional measures that are at the heart of the dispute over the bill, and why it has not reached the President's desk before the election.

10/21/04 EU's 'big three' give Iran last chance 10/20/04 EU preparing for vote on Turkish accession 10/19/04 UK ready to send troops to 'Triangle of Death'

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday that the Senate and House conferees began the " daunting and politically charged task" of negotiating the bill so they can send it to the president.

The bipartisan Senate bill, approved 96-2, incorporates most of the commission's recommendations, including creation of a strong national intelligence director who would control the country's 15 spy agencies and have strong budget authority. It also would create a national counterterrorism center that would be an interagency body designed to move quickly on terrorist threats and a board to oversee civil liberties. It calls for making public the overall size of the now-secret intelligence budget.

The House bill, passed 282-134 after a version incorporating the Senate bill was turned aside, calls for a somewhat weaker intelligence director, is silent about ending budget secrecy and contains numerous immigration and law enforcement provisions that have been criticized by some senators, civil libertarians, and Sept. 11 victims' families for having the potential to delay enactment of the commission's core recommendations.

The New York Times reports that members of the 9/11 commission joined together to praise the Senate bill and criticized the House for being too "half-hearted" about the creation of the national intelligence director, and for the additional law enforcement and illegal immigration measures. Bi-partisan co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote to Congress, reports the Chronicle, about the need for effective legislation to be passed soon.

"We believe strongly that this bill is not the right occasion for tackling controversial immigration and law enforcement issues that go well beyond the commission's recommendations," they wrote. The two also warned Congress and Bush that they and the public are watching. "The coming week offers the American people a concrete test of congressional and presidential leadership," they wrote. "There is also an extraordinary opportunity to reach out a hand of cooperation – even in this difficult moment – across the aisle and unite in a common cause to make our country safer," the commission members wrote.

"They're not extraneous provisions; they're vital," said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "We must not be deterred by the well-intentioned belief expressed by some that these ideas in the House bill are too controversial to be enacted."

Meanwhile, civil libertarians say the legislation is moving too fast, and has too many broad provisions, and is getting the "Patriot Act treatment" in the way that it is being rushed through the legislative process before it can be properly debated.

With most Americans focused on the upcoming election, writes Declan McCullagh of CNet, many people are unaware that the new legislation includes measures to "coerce" state governments into creating national identity cards. Meanwhile another section, Mr. McCullagh writes, "anticipates storing the 'lifetime travel history of each foreign national or United States citizen' into a database for the convenience of government officials."

Editorials in various papers also argued that the legislation should be "done right, not fast." Newsday's editorial argues that while there may be some merit to the House proposals, they need more discussion.

Some of the ideas may have merit. But they raise unanswered questions about the need for expanded powers and their impact on civil liberties. Those sidecar provisions should be debated deliberately, not tacked onto complex legislation and rushed into law.

Currently, for the FBI to obtain a warrant from the secret federal foreign intelligence court, there has to be a connection between the subject of the surveillance and a foreign government or terrorist group. The House version would expand the court's jurisdiction to include individuals acting alone. The FBI can always go to the regular criminal courts to obtain eavesdropping warrants on individuals suspected of terrorism. But the agency wants to use the secret court for warrants even when a suspect has no ties to a foreign terrorist group. The purpose is to get around the proof requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Also...
• The Baghdad Blogger goes to Washington: day one ( Guardian)
• Black Watch ordered to join US cordon for assault on Fallujah ( Independent)
• On Patrol: Finding only shadows in hunt for insurgents ( New York Times)
• Star Wars deal places US missiles on UK soil ( Independent)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan .