Senate begins debate on FISA surveillance as deadline approaches

The Senate voted on Thursday to advance a House-approved bill that reauthorizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA) warrantless surveillance program, setting the stage for a bruising debate over the controversial program before it expires. after Friday.

The Senate voted 67-32 to advance a motion to begin debate on the bill, the first of at least three procedural steps required before holding a final vote on the legislation, which passed the House by an overwhelming margin.

The legislation would reauthorize FISA’s Section 702 authority for just two years — far short of the five-year reauthorization that congressional leaders initially envisioned.

Thursday’s vote sets the stage for a Senate battle that pits privacy advocates like Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) against Senate leaders and senior members of privacy committees. Senate Intelligence and Armed Services warning failure to reauthorize the program by 11:59 p.m. Friday could force intelligence agencies to “go dark” and expose the nation to attacks.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Thursday urged his colleagues not to let the program expire, even temporarily.

“No other law is more important to the work of the intelligence community than Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Act,” he declared on the floor.

“It is difficult to overstate even the importance of this law or, frankly, the gravity of allowing it to disappear. However, we are 36 hours away from that happening,” he warned.

Paul, however, dismissed such warnings as “scaremongering” and says he would have no problem letting Section 702 expire for a few days if he doesn’t have time to debate and vote on the changes he wants to make. the bill.

He wants a vote on an amendment similar to one Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) offered in the House to require authorities to obtain a warrant to review the information of Americans caught surveilling foreign targets under Section 702. That proposal It failed by 212 votes to 212 in the lower house.

Paul also wants a vote on his Not for Sale Act Fourth Amendment, which would prohibit law enforcement and intelligence agencies from purchasing U.S. customer and subscriber data from third parties. Wyden is also a sponsor of this.

And the Kentucky lawmaker says he wants to vote on an amendment that would prevent the use of FISA as a whole to authorize any searches or surveillance of Americans.

“They abused their power, which is why we need more protections for Americans,” Paul said. “It’s a very important thing. I think the vast majority of Republicans across the country, even Democrats, think your government shouldn’t spy on you without a warrant.

Paul also wants a vote on his Not for Sale Act Fourth Amendment, which would prohibit law enforcement and intelligence agencies from purchasing U.S. customer and subscriber data from third parties. Wyden is also a sponsor of this. A House version of the measure passed Wednesday.

Wyden says he will offer an amendment to eliminate a provision of the FISA bill authored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) that he says would dramatically increase the authority of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on Americans.

He said Turner’s language will dramatically expand the scope of surveillance authority to require all types of companies, not just Google and telecommunications companies, to cooperate with data requests.

“I will move forward to repeal this Turner amendment,” Wyden told The Hill. “I think it’s a stunning expansion of the government’s role in requiring Americans to comply with requests for information.

“Basically, right now, when the government wants to collect information, it’s really Google and AT&T,” he said of the current surveillance authority.

But Wyden says Turner’s amendment would dramatically expand that authority “to make it a large number of companies and individuals” who would have to comply.

Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Wyden’s and other critics’ characterizations of that provision.

“The amendment does not allow, as some have said, the government to spy on restaurants, bars [and] libraries,” he said, calling such claims “absurd distortions.”