What's Really in the RESTORE Act

I was pleased to see Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein acknowledge that he "may have made a mistake" in his column attacking the House Majority ("The Tone Deaf Democrats") and misrepresenting the RESTORE Act. Unfortunately, Mr. Klein still professes confusion toward the bill's contents and continues to question whether the House should have passed it in the first place.

As one of the bill's authors, I want to set the record straight about what's in the RESTORE Act, why it's needed to safeguard Americans from unwarranted surveillance, and ultimately, why it will lead to better intelligence gathering.

In his original column, Mr. Klein incorrectly wrote, "Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that - Limbaugh is salivating - would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only." It contains no such provision.

(Also, as someone closely involved in trying to produce a good bill, I cannot figure out what bipartisan House Intelligence Committee effort Speaker Pelosi "quashed" that Mr. Klein could possibly be talking about. Several Republicans proposed something close to last August's Protect America Act, but that never got anywhere.)

Let me repeat: our bill gives the intelligence community the tools and flexibility it needs to listen to the conversations between those who wish to do us harm. This bill provides exactly what the Director of National Intelligence asked for earlier this year: it explicitly states that no court order is required to listen to the conversations of foreigners that happen to pass through the U.S. telecommunications system. It does not grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists.

What we have not agreed to do is give this or any other President a permanent blank check to spy on you, your family, the members of your congregation, or any other American citizen without any judicial oversight - a position shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans according to the latest public opinion surveys on the topic.

If federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies want to read the email or listen to the phone call of an American citizen, they have to get - except in emergencies - a judge to issue a warrant allowing them do so, as the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires. Such a court order would be easy to get if there is cause to believe that the American's communications are important intelligence for the protection of our security. And in such "emergencies" there would be quick after-the-fact review by the courts. These are not "unimportant, obscure technical details" - this is the heart of the bill.

In an era where the government can conduct searches and seize the contents of communications without even alerting citizens to the government's presence, building in such safeguards is even more important than in James Madison's day, when if the King's men were coming to take you or your papers, you at least saw them walking up to your door before they kicked it in.

This bill is not simply about "defining the 4th Amendment rights of US residents in light of new technologies" - as Mr. Klein wrote in a later posting. As I've previously noted, our bill will only strengthen and improve intelligence collection and analysis. It has been demonstrated that when officials must establish before a court that they have reason to intercept communications - that is, that they know what they are doing - we get better intelligence than through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions.

What our bill does is both protect Constitutional norms and require that the government meet some basic evidentiary standards - as evaluated by a judge - before allowing the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the other elements of our federal law enforcement and intelligence communities to conduct surveillance on Americans. Having to meet a standard in the intelligence business isn't simply about protecting American rights, it's about targeting the right people in the first place. We must not let anyone advance the bogus argument - repeated by Mr. Klein - that protecting American's against unwarranted search and seizure necessarily requires a compromise in their security. The opposite is true.

It is interesting that the principles Mr. Klein proposes and claims a bipartisan bill should include are included in the bill as written and passed by the House: the use of new surveillance technologies against foreign targets is appropriate; if a suspicious pattern is found between a foreigner and a US person, a warrant would be needed to monitor those communications; and the identities of US persons caught up in those intercepts would be minimized so the identities would not be known or used.

Mr. Klein is correct that Republicans will try to misrepresent the RESTORE Act as "civil rights for terrorists." They have already used these scare tactics and will continue to make false, hyperbolic statements about the bill. However, protecting Americans is too important for Democrats to allow such scurrilous attacks to lead them to sacrifice legislation that adheres to the principles that are necessary to protect Americans.

The House should be proud that it passed a bill that would strengthen the intelligence collection facet of our national security efforts and strengthen our Constitutional protections. This is the kind of tough-minded, hard-thinking legislation that is needed in this complicated and dangerous world. I can only try to get the Senate to do as well, and then hope that the President would approve it.

Comments

[gernger]

The only way to hold the executive branch to the rule of law is to repeal the 25th amendment, which gives the president the right to pick the V.P if there is a vacancy. the first time it was used, Nixon picked Ford to replace him, then Nixon resigned, Ford became President, and immediately pardoned Nixon. This can be easily repeated. Cheney can resign, get a full pardon from Bush,then Bush could appoint Hastert as V.P., then Bush could resign, Hastert becomes President, and pardons Bush. The only way to avoid this scenario now would be for the Senate, not to confirm the V.P.that Bush nominates,then Bush would have to depend on Nancy Pelosi, or the incomming President for his pardon.

[BinBaldwin]

Eoin

It was RFK. Not Hoover that wiretapped MLK.

[BinBaldwin]

Mr Klein is correct since the term " US Persons" means ANYONE within US Borders. I would prefer if it said US Citizens and Permanent Legal Residents but it does not. As written this DOES grant Constitutional Rights to Terrorists. I almost always disagree with Klein but on this issue he is correct.

[leftLibertarian]

Rep. Holt:

Thank you for defending liberty against the liars and propagandists.

Now how about supporting the impeachment of the criminals Bush and Cheney.

[oogabooga]

Without our Constitution, the fascist Bushes and Cheneys and Roves of the world will ride roughshod over the regular people. It's all we have to protect us from them and the government­/corporati­ons they control. If we lose our Constitution in the name of providing an imaginary cacoon of safety, we are dead meat anyway.

[Swordfish]

Which word(-s) don't you understand:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Thankyou, Rush Holt, for keeping the dialog HONEST!

bored? visit http://alqaedanabq.blogspot.com

[TheHandyman]

First, the Constitution does not "give" us any rights. The founding fathers understood that these "rights" were natural rights that all humans are born with. That is why the Constitution forbids that Congress or the President do anything to interfer with or suppress those rights. If you read the Constitution there is a passage that also says that these rights are not the only rights but there may be additional rights that humans have that are not contained in the Constitution. If the founding Fathers recognized that all humans have these rights, then the "terrorists" also have those rights and they may not be taken away. Please notice that the Constitution does not say Americans but says humans. These are Universal rights, not just rights granted to Americans. I hate to be redundant, but it is a very important point. They also recognized that there would be attempts by elected officials to abuse these rights and try to use them for their own gain. Who determines who is a terrorist? So far, given the number of cases this administration has successfully tried they think a lot of Americans are terrorists and yet they either were afraid to try them or they got convictions on other lesser trumped up charges. One never turns over this kind of power to an elected official. The shrub and Darth are good examples as to why.

The next thing is that given Holts voting record and that he supported the war and has done little to put an end to it why does anyone believe him? Because Senator wouldn't, excuse me, a Democratic Senator wouldn't lie?

I didn't read the Klien article. But if Holt wants to prove what he says is true then he should have posted a link so we could all go read it for ourselves. I doubt that he has read it. He didn't read the Patriot act. Very few of these people read anything. The lobbyists write them and congressional aides read them and provide synopsis's of these bills.

[Jane22]

As most of us know, This current regime will use any excuse to violate the rights of anyone that gets in the way of their sweeping agenda. To trust liars and traitors to uphold the rule of law is the exact reason laws need to be clear. As BushCo have demonstrated repeatedly, they will find any grounds they need to attack the rights of anyone who threatens the dominance of their premises. It is important to get laws stated in the clearest language poosible so others beyond Bush cannot interpret them as they wish. Our rights have been systematically trashed for a long time as lawyers wrangle for the advantage of the elites. Just look at the Supreme Court! What Bush has done is stack it with Repub.Activist Judges who will support any right wing agenda coming down the pike in the foreseeable future. For this group it is just fine as long as the activists are their hand-picked cronies. What we have is a judicial nightmare for the future! There exists so little integrity in our gov't due to the MONEY FACTOR! and the lack of will to create true EQUITY in all spheres. Impeachment and complete Campaign Election reform are the only solutions for the future. How can we get this with the current group of elected officials who benefit so profitably? Every initiative that this cabal has pushed through needs to be repealed! They are our WORST ENEMIES! How about authorizing wire tapping on them? Bet we would get some real juicy info. regarding treason and insider dealing! Come to think of it, why not make them (all elected officials) take drug tests just as we regular folks are subjected to for employment? I am not a traitor. I have never caused the DEATHS of anyone! Peace

[bethinCary]

Thanks for posting this here at Huffpo Rep Holt. It's just too bad that the media can't do their job (Klein) and simply find out and write these things also (by actually talking to you about it).
Thanks for your work on this-no immunity.

[Spookcatcher]

Nothing Congress is passing today, (or for the last 7.75 years) or will pass in the future is stopping or will stop the Fascist Elitests agenda. They now have completed the cycle of events that has unlimitedly empowered the office of the Presidentby by the default of Congress' abandonment of their sworn duty to preserve and protect the U.S. Constitution. All President's now and through to the fruition of the metamorphisis of America into a proletaria­t/dictatos­hip via the hostile implimentation of the Unified Executive Authority Doctrine, will decide laws. the President has decided that he has Signing Statements and Executive Orders that are without boundaries or legal retractive or nullifivation powers subserviant against him by the other two branches. He has a Secret Service expansion of powers (that were granted stupidly by Congress) and duties to him without oversight, and intelligence agencies with black budgets (i.e. CIA)that can operate secretly also without oversight by Congress, (they even engage in special operations without the President's knowledge, for these Elitists)! But it's a nice try by the sheep of Congress to look like they still "serve" some types of function on the "publics" behalf.

[taikan]

"The House should be proud that it passed a bill that would strengthen the intelligence collection facet of our national security efforts and strengthen our Constitutional protections."
That sounds nice, but the reality is somewhat different. Making it easier to eavesdrop on phone communications or e-mail without a warrant is the antithesis of doing something that will "strengthen our Constitutional protections." If you and the Democratic leadership truly want to support the Constitution, you would repeal the PATRIOT Act and go back to the old FISA. The Constitution is not a document that is meant to be ignored in the name of national security. Every time that has happened in the past, it has later come to be recognized as having been a mistake.

[joebaggadonuts]

Representative Holt,

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you would not include a link to the actual text of the bill in your posting.

Are you wondering if we would read it?

Regards.

J.

[SamLC]

This bill, of course, will be defeated by hidebound ideolouges bent on yeilding basic rights to executive discretion, Constitution be damned. But defeat will be one more bullet to fire when the Dems really turn on the heat 08. Many claim the Dems prove themselves impotent in face of the neo-con juggernaut even with a majority. I see it more as "keeping your poweder dry" till it really counts, the lead up to the election.

[Teaeopy]

Domestic surveillance in the USA is a serious matter, and we should stop the snow job. There is growing public awareness that government surveillance is engineered to sift all telephonic and Internet transmissions. Efforts to that end aren't perfected, but progress is being made.

The distinctions in new legislation that are meant to soothe the public are ill-defined and basically worthless. They are, however, politically useful.

Bring back the “old” FISA for the immediate future. Protect the Constitution.

[amberglow]

Send this to Time and demand it be printed in the next offline edition. It's important.