Props to House Republicans for getting something done.

[Skjellyfetti]

Hopefully it doesn't get stalled and Obama doesn't veto...

The House of Representatives just overwhelmingly voted to rein in the National Security Agency. By a vote of 293 to 123, the House approved a proposal by Reps. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and others that would limit "backdoor searches," a method of spying on Americans despite legal safeguards designed to prevent it.

In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which expanded the government's warrantless surveillance powers.

Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment requires an individualized warrant before the government can engage in surveillance on American soil. But the FAA created an alternative process where a judge can authorize entire surveillance programs without necessarily knowing which specific people will be surveillance targets. The PRISM program, which the NSA uses to obtain private information from companies such as Google and Facebook, was authorized under this provision of the FAA.

The George W. Bush administration argued that it needed this new power to spy on terrorists whose communications passed through the United States. The FAA included a provision barring the government from using the surveillance facilities to "target" Americans. The problem, civil liberties groups argue, is that "targeting" is defined in a way that doesn't actually protect Americans. There are ways for the NSA to effectively spy on Americans without technically "targeting" them.

One example is what's known as a backdoor search. In this technique, the NSA engages in wide surveillance of communications that involve both Americans and foreigners. So long as the foreigners are the official "target," this is permitted under the FAA. The NSA sometimes stores the information it has collected in a giant database. And the agency has taken the position that it can search this database for information about Americans without running afoul of the no-targeting-Americans rule.

y itself, the amendment falls short of the kind of sweeping NSA reforms some civil liberties groups support. But the vote represents the first time a house of Congress has voted to curtail the controversial practices revealed by Ed Snowden last year. It will give NSA critics renewed political momentum and may force President Obama to make further concessions to critics of the NSA.

In August, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) offered an amendment to last year's defense funding bill that would have shut down a different NSA program: the collection of Americans' phone records. That vote failed in a razor-thin 205 to 217 vote. The surprising closeness of the vote was widely interpreted as a sign of congressional anger over the NSA's actions.

Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, argues that the vote is a rebuke to the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee. That body is supposed to serve as a watchdog over NSA surveillance, but in recent years it has more often acted as a defender of NSA policies. The vote, Sanchez says, "demonstrates pretty dramatically that the gatekeepers in the Intelligence Committee are out of synch with the sentiment of the broader House."

Sanchez also notes that similar language was stripped from the USA FREEDOM Act, legislation intended to rein in the NSA that wound up being substantially weakened during the legislative process.

The vote for the amendment was bipartisan. Democrats supported it 158 to 29, while Republicans supported it 135 to 94.

The amendment was supported by Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), but opposed by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House Majority Leader. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) generally does not vote.

There are still a number of steps that must occur before the amendment could become law. The amended bill needs to be approved by the House, companion legislation needs to be approved by the Senate, and President Obama would need to sign the legislation. The Senate could refuse to approve the amendment, or President Obama could veto legislation that included it.

But the vote is significant less because of the details of the amendment but as a barometer of Congressional dissatisfaction with the NSA. The surprisingly strong vote will energize NSA critics and could force the agency to trim its sails.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/20/5826482/th ... in-the-nsa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

That's great but they are getting something done on a continuous basis. They are impeding Obama and the Democrats in Congress during their efforts to get what they want done. Minimizing the damage those clowns can do is getting a LOT done. There are levees all over the place in the New Orleans area. They're just sitting there. But they're holding the water back. They're getting something very important done. So it is with the House right now. It's the only "levee" standing between us the Democrats' efforts to REALLY screw things up. Its importance can be illustrated by noting that the Affordable Care Act was passed and signed into law when it wasn't in place.

Aside from that, the House does things all the time. They pass lots of bills that then die in the Senate. One can say they're glad the Senate stops what the House is trying to do just as one can say they're glad that the House stops what the Senate and the President want to do. But it's not correct to say the House hasn't been doing anything. It's been doing a plenty in terms of voting to pass bills and send them on to the Senate.

Like here's an article from 2010 (top link in a Google search I just did) entitled, "Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by the House, tension mounts:"

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059 ... ouse-bills" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueHen86]

That's great but they are getting something done on a continuous basis. They are impeding Obama and the Democrats in Congress during their efforts to get what they want done. Minimizing the damage those clowns can do is getting a LOT done. There are levees all over the place in the New Orleans area. They're just sitting there. But they're holding the water back. They're getting something very important done. So it is with the House right now. It's the only "levee" standing between us the Democrats' efforts to REALLY screw things up. Its importance can be illustrated by noting that the Affordable Care Act was passed and signed into law when it wasn't in place.

Aside from that, the House does things all the time. They pass lots of bills that then die in the Senate. One can say they're glad the Senate stops what the House is trying to do just as one can say they're glad that the House stops what the Senate and the President want to do. But it's not correct to say the House hasn't been doing anything. It's been doing a plenty in terms of voting to pass bills and send them on to the Senate.

Like here's an article from 2010 (top link in a Google search I just did) entitled, "Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by the House, tension mounts:"

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059 ... ouse-bills" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, the House is doing a lot, I've lost track of how many times they have repealed Obamacare.

Here's a newsflash: passing a bill that you know won't get by the Senate or the White House isn't really doing anything.

[CID1990]

SK you need things voxplained to you?

[DSUrocks07]

Here's a newsflash: passing a bill that you know won't get by the Senate or the White House isn't really doing anything.

This.

all of these "statement votes" are purely for the purpose of getting re-elected. same goes for the donks in the Senate as well.

1) pass something you want that the other house won't approve
2) point the finger at them as the reason why it didn't get passed.
3) ????
4) PROFIT!!!

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think this is something that is necessarily going to die in the Senate. I think much more likely that Obama would veto it, unfortunately.

Most of the "statement votes" are highly bipartisan and have no hope of getting through.

This was passed very bipartisanly...

It could still die... but, I don't see it nearly in the same light as other bills.