2 panels in House agree to curb NSA
WASHINGTON — The House crossed a major hurdle in its efforts to rein in the National Security Agency when two oversight committees agreed this week on a proposal to end the agency's practice of collecting Americans' phone records and the bulk collection of all other records, such as credit card data. The House could vote on the bill as early as this month.
It was the first sign of consensus in the bitterly divided House on the controversial NSA surveillance programs since the spying was disclosed nearly a year ago. President Obama has called for similar changes but is relying on Congress to hammer out the details. Senate oversight committees have yet to agree, which would be necessary before any new law is approved.
The House proposal — passed on Wednesday by the Judiciary Committee and Thursday by the Intelligence Committee — would strengthen privacy safeguards for Americans' communications that are swept up by the NSA. It also would require more transparency for disclosing how often private companies cooperate with the government on records requests.
Obama has not formally backed any of the proposals under consideration, but a White House spokeswoman said the bill is a “very good step.”
While civil liberties advocates consider the House bill a big step, more consensus is needed before the Obama administration stops sweeping up Americans' phone records and holding them for five years.
It's unlikely that any final decision will be made before the midterm elections in November.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Colorado clinic shooting suspect talked of baby parts, police say
- Police officer killed in Colorado Spring clinic rampage a co-pastor, figure skater
- Slow-moving, wintry storm packs punch in Plains, Midwest
- Police union stands by Chicago officer charged with murdering teen
- Federal $1.1 trillion spending bill loaded with policy deals
- Authorization for NSA dragnets of phone call data expires
- Pot doctors in medical marijuana states push boundaries with marketing
- Disability claim waits grow alongside swelling caseloads for judges
- AIDS activist finishes rowing across Atlantic
- Prof proposes museum of corruption in New York capital
- Nuclear crossroad: California reactors face uncertain future