U.S. lawmakers vote reject immunity for phone firms involved in eavesdropping

By Eric Lichtblau
Friday, March 14, 2008

WASHINGTON: After its first secret session in a quarter-century, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday rejected retroactive immunity for the phone companies that took part in the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it voted to place greater restrictions on the government's wiretapping powers.

The decision, by a largely party-line vote of 213 to 197, is one of the few times when Democrats have been willing to buck up against the White House on a national security issue. It also ensures that the months-long battle over the government's wiretapping powers will drag on for at least a few more weeks and possibly much longer.

With President George W. Bush and Democratic leaders squaring off almost daily on the wiretapping question, neither side has shown much inclination to budge. The question now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers passed a bill last month that was much more to the liking of the White House. Unlike the bill approved Friday by the House, it would give legal immunity to the phone providers that helped in the National Security Agency's wiretapping program, which Bush says is essential to protect national security.

The House bill approved Friday includes three key elements: It would refuse retroactive immunity to the phone companies, providing special authority instead for the courts to decide the liability issue; it would add additional judicial restrictions on the government's wiretapping powers while plugging certain loopholes in foreign coverage; and it would create a congressional commission to investigate the NSA program.

Even if the House bill were to gain approval by the Senate - a prospect that appears unlikely - a veto by the White House appears certain. The margin by which the House vote was approved was far short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto.

Even before the first vote was cast, Bush assailed the Democrats' proposal in remarks Thursday at the White House, calling it "a partisan bill that would undermine America's security."

"Companies that may have helped us save lives should be thanked for their patriotic service, not subjected to billion-dollar lawsuits that will make them less willing to help in the future," the president said. "The House bill may be good for class action trial lawyers, but it would be terrible for the United States."

In fact, while some private lawyers are assisting in the litigation, the groups leading the efforts, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, are nonprofit advocacy groups.

Bush also blasted the requirement in the legislation to create a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to examine the workings of the NSA's program. Democrats say it may be the only way they will learn how the program was really run, but Bush called it "a redundant and partisan exercise that would waste our intelligence officials' time and taxpayers' money."

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was sharply critical of the president's assessment that the legislation would not make America safer. "The president is wrong, and he knows it," she said Thursday.

Republicans convinced Democratic leaders to convene a secret session of the House on Thursday evening to discuss classified intelligence related to the phone companies' role in the NSA program. Republicans said the session was crucial to understanding what role the companies had played, but Democrats accused their counterparts of political grandstanding. It was the first secret session since 1983, when the House met behind closed doors to consider funding for the contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Congress Set to Tighten Scrutiny of Foreign Deals

Wall Street Journal
By GREG HITT
July 11, 2007; Page A8

WASHINGTON -- More than a year after Dubai Ports World sparked a big political fight on Capitol Hill, the Democratic-led Congress is close to winding up action on legislation that tightens U.S. scrutiny of foreign investments.

In an era of high partisanship, action on the bill, which is expected to win final approval today, shows Democrats and Republicans can work together on an issue of wide concern to many U.S. businesses. The legislation tightens the federal regimen for reviewing deals and provides for greater scrutiny of transactions led by foreign government-controlled entities.

It also makes the once-shadowy U.S. review process more transparent. Business ultimately embraced the changes as a way to allay concerns abroad that the U.S. had become a riskier destination for foreign capital following the DP World debacle.

"It's important for Congress to show that we haven't decided to secede from the world," House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank said. The Massachusetts Democrat worked closely on the legislation with former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, a close friend of President Bush who is now head of the Financial Services Forum, the influential trade group. "We're hanging out the welcome sign for foreign investment," Mr. Frank said.

But while the measure has moved through Congress with wide bipartisan support, enactment of the bill won't do much to stem concern among some Americans about globalization. Those worries stoked opposition to Mr. Bush's proposed immigration overhaul, which would have provided a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented workers in the U.S.

The concerns have cast doubt on the fate of free-trade deals coveted by the White House. And they are almost certain to touch off a fresh fight over foreign investment, especially if a U.S. company of strategic significance, such as an energy or transportation firm, is the target of an unwanted offer from abroad.

"In any contested takeover, this card would be played," said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, recalling a 2005 fight in Congress over a Chinese government-owned company's attempted acquisition of a U.S. oil company.

The legislation was launched after DP World, owned by the government of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, moved to acquire control of several U.S. port operations, as part of a global deal. After conducting a standard 30-day review, the Bush administration approved the acquisition. But lawmakers in both parties raised alarms at the notion of giving an Arab company a foothold in U.S. port operations. Amid the hue and cry, DP World agreed to sell off its U.S. holdings.

In one response to the administration's handling of DP World, the legislation requires the government to conduct an extended, 45-day probe of most deals involving foreign government-owned companies. The legislation also requires greater disclosure to Congress of the operations of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., the government panel that reviews the security aspects of overseas deals.

The House and Senate approved broadly similar bills earlier this year. But in an effort to speed action, the House decided against pursuing negotiations with the Senate on a compromise package. Instead, the House yesterday took up the Senate measure, formally debating the bill but deferring a final vote until today, in part because inclement weather delayed the return of some lawmakers to Washington. Final House approval of the bill would send the measure to the White House for the president's expected signature.

Among other provisions, the legislation requires senior-level approval of all deals and carves a formal role for the intelligence community in investment reviews. The measure also expands the range of transactions subject to potential review, requiring consideration of deals involving critical infrastructure, such as power plants and toll roads.