Georgia’s U.S. Senators were on opposite sides of the aisle last week when an amendment, which would have forced the government to get a warrant before obtaining the internet search history of Americans under the FISA Act, failed to get enough votes for passage.
Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler split on the bipartisan Wyden-Daines Amendment by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, a Republican, which would have expressly prohibited the collection of this information in the secret courts that all too often come under fire.
[A more lengthy explanation of the Wyden-Daines Amendment, the PATRIOT Act, the USA Freedom Act, and more in this link]
“[T]he question is not whether you did anything wrong. The question is whether a government agent believes they have the right to look at your web searches. In other words, it’s open season on anyone’s most personal information.” – Senator Ron Wyden.
The amendment failed in a vote of 59-37. The measure needed 60 votes to pass.
Four Senators were absent, Alexander (R-TN), Murray (D-WA), Sanders (I-VT), and Sasse (R-NE), though it was reported that Alexander was in self-quarantine due to a staffer testing positive for COVID-19.
Due to the absence of at least two Senators who later said they would have supported the measure, a number of civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, FreedomWorks, Constitutional Alliance, and Freedom of the Press Foundation, requested Monday that the Senate either add the Wyden-Daines Amendment language to the final bill or put the Amendment back on the floor for an additional vote, citing that “support for the underlying policy is now abundantly clear, both within Congress and among the public.”
In the joint letter by the groups said, they asserted the following:
The FBI should not be allowed to use the PATRIOT Act to surveil Americans’ online activity without a warrant. Internet search and browsing history is extremely revealing in nature and the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to obtain this information. As the Supreme Court in Riley noted, “An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual’s private interests or concerns…Section 215 was never intended to allow the government to collect such information, and the Wyden-Daines amendment would make this prohibition crystal clear. Given the government’s failure to disclose whether it believes it can collect this information under Section 215 already, the bright-line rule reflected in the Wyden-Daines amendment is sorely needed.
27 Republicans voted NO
Barrasso, John (R-WY)
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)
Blunt, Roy (R-MO)
Boozman, John (R-AR)
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV)
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Cotton, Tom (R-AR)
Fischer, Deb (R-NE)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Hyde-Smith, Cindy (R-MS)
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK)
Johnson, Ron (R-WI)
Lankford, James (R-OK)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Perdue, David (R-GA)
Portman, Rob (R-OH)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Romney, Mitt (R-UT)
Rubio, Marco (R-FL)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Tillis, Thom (R-NC)
Toomey, Patrick J. (R-PA)
Wicker, Roger F. (R-MS)
Young, Todd (R-IN)
10 Democrats voted NO
Carper, Thomas R. (D-DE)
Casey, Robert P., Jr. (D-PA)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Hassan, Margaret Wood (D-NH)
Jones, Doug (D-AL)
Kaine, Tim (D-VA)
Manchin, Joe, III (D-WV)
Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH)
Warner, Mark R. (D-VA)
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)