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

[sulphurdun]

The Constitution of the United States contains no provision for the de facto suspension of any of its articles by any branch of government outside of the procedures it establishes for amendment by two-thirds of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states or by two-thirds of state legislatures and ratification by three-fourths of the states. The sole exception regards the suspension of habeas corpus in Article 1, section 9, and then only in cases of foreign invasion or armed rebellion. Holt and the democrats stands on fairly firm constitutional ground. The republicans remain, as always, oath breakers and criminal conspirators against the rule of law.

[AMolinaro]

Isn't it clear that we've already passed the point of absurdity simply because we're even debating about whether or not the government is required to follow the Constitution? The President does not take an oath to make certain no American citizens die, he does take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Bush should be impeached on those grounds alone.

[LindaJay]

Rep. Holt,

Thank you for presenting the facts that Joke Line couldn't be bothered to really find out. But you're probably preaching to the choir here - most of us interested in this bill actually read it, unlike JK.

I think the larger issue is why the Democratic Party continues to tolerate the blatantly neocon press' continous lies and slandering of what the Party stands for. I realize that it would take up quite a lot of time to actively protest every slanted story, as they are a daily occurence.

But at what point is enough enough? At what point does it matter to Democrats that the message average Americans get about them is blatantly untrue? I would think it would be a matter of political survival to start standing up and trying to make some meaningful change. Americans don't deserve to have every last avenue of news owned by a handful of people who are in bed with the repugnant neocon rightwing - who most Americans would feel nothing but disgust for if they knew what was really going on.

[dj55]

I'm so glad you're my representative. I know I can count on you to always do the responsible, right thing. Thanks again.

[bitplayer]

You say that this bill "does not grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists."

Since we're actually talking about SUSPECTED terrorists, my question is WHY NOT? The underlying principle of our constitution is that the rights contained therein should be held by all the people of the world. This ideal has been reaffirmed constantly throughout this nation's history, from all points on the political spectrum, right up until, well, a few years ago, anyway. Still, isn't it implicit in our desire to spread democracy to the world? Civil rights are for EVERYONE. EVERYONE. It's that simple. And we need to say it. "Civil rights for terrorists" is not a "misrepres­entation." It's a principle. Stick by it.

When Wolf Blitzer asked Bill Richardson if he was saying that human rights were sometimes more important than national security, Richardson should not have said "Yes." He should have said, "NO. They're ALWAYS more important."

American principles must apply to every human being within our reach. We must stop being on the defensive about this.

Courage, please.

[ProgressivePartisan]

Hmm ... Joe Klein. Do you mean Joe Klein the neo-con bootlick? That Joe Klein?

[Fightnmad]

Continued, as promised-

Rep. Holt, you wrote:

"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..."

Question: What, exactly, constitutes "emergencies" that was not already written into the FISA Act? Did the Patriot Act trump the FISA Act, as the neocons would have us believe?

And, you also wrote:

"if a suspicious pattern is found between a foreigner and a US person, a warrant would be needed to monitor those communications...";

By "suspicious pattern" do you mean the number of times the American citizen receives soliciting calls from India, Mexico, etc., or are the calls already being monitored of content, as is implied by the term "suspicious pattern" from ANY foreign country? What of communications between spouses who travel to Europe on business? Are they establishing a "pattern" worthy of surveillance?

Have to tell you, sir, this is NOT very comforting. Fact is, this sweeping surveillance was written into the USA Patriot Act, giving unprecedented powers to the executive branch, and putting American citizens at the mercy of the government, not unlike the German Enabling Act that gave Hitler unprecedented power of spying on German citizens.

The genie is out of the bottle, sir, and I am highly skeptical your RESTORE Act will put it back in.

Thank you.

[adzeman]

Sorry that the lazy hack Joe Klein couldn't be bothered to do research on his article. Instead he used "sources" at RNC. Gee, I wonder if they had an agenda?.
Anyway thanks for your hard work, and I hope you get a deserved apology and retraction from Joe Klein and Time magazine.
I hope against hope that the GOP supports this and the constitution instead of showing their contempt for the American people...again.

[jazzman]

We should all remember that indiscriminate survelliance without oversight can be used to dig up dirt on political enemies, opposition parties and movements, and use that information to intimidate, blackmail, and even frame political opponents. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution was written with a full knowledge of the nature of human beings. To trust that those in power will somehow restrain themselves and only use surveillance for noble purposes is hopelessly naive and just plain stupid. We must protect ourselves both from our enemies abroad and our power hungry politicans both who would seek to do us harm from time to time in order to further their own agendas.

[PerryWhite]

If the Fourth Amendment requires that a judge issue a warrant for a wiretap, how did Robert Kennedy wiretap MLK, Jr. without a warrant?

[Fightnmad]

Rep. Holt, You wrote:

"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."

My first questions to you are: If anyone in the U.S. receives a phone call from a solicitor who is based in a foreign country, India for example, they are utilizing the US telecom system, correct? Is this also true with junk e-mail/spam?

Would said calls/e-mails from foreign countries automatically open up sweeping surveillance lines? Isn't this currently the practice, a la Hermann Goering? Is this not domestic spying performed upon unsuspecting citizens, without a warrant, as written in Amendment IV?:

"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*." *emphasis mine*

To be continued....

[msmolly]

Thanks, Representative Holt, for making this crystal clear even to a hack columnist who cannot be bothered to spend time to figure out the FISA act so he could report accurately. He'd rather lie in print and let Time Magazine protect him and mislead 4 million readers.

[rixhex56]

"It contains no such provision." -- (last line, 3rd paragraph)

Of course it doesn't.

Gee, what a surprise that there would be such a deception, lie, distortion, presented to the American public.

[Chris]

Rep. Holt

You say "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."

If a suspicious pattern is found why would you want to prevent the feds from knowing the identities of people invovled in the suspicious activies?

This seems like that same flawed logic that feds had in preventing/slowing the sharing of information between different agencies.

[eztempo]

I came across a time-worn observation that fits here as well as with the Bush/Cheney Torture Policy:
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws."
- John Adams

Come to think of it, the quote fits the terrorists just as well. Amazing the symmetry, huh?