|
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky,
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection,
today sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence raising questions
about authority he was granted by President Bush that would allow the DNI to
exempt corporations from record keeping duties and liability for matters if
deemed related to national security. This authority to grant waivers has broad
implications for the reported phone record and internet message tracking
programs the NSA has engaged in with major telecommunications companies.
Schakowsky is the sponsor of the SAFE CALL Act, which would protect the phone
records of consumers, and was joined by all Democratic Members of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee in pressing Chairman Barton to hold hearings to
determine what the telecommunications companies have shared with the
Administration, and whether those actions were legal.
The letter is below:
June 8, 2006
John D. Negroponte
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511
Dear Director Negroponte:
It has come to my attention that on May 5, 2006, President Bush
issued a memo that gives you as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
broad authority to exempt corporations from record keeping duties and liability
for specific actions that may be taken should the DNI declare that such actions
are matters of national security (Federal Register: May 12, 2006 [Volume 71,
Number 92, Page 27943, Doc 06-4538]). I am concerned about this new authority
because under it, the DNI does not need to seek any permission from the
President or Congress to issue such directives and there is minimal oversight
once the directive is given. In fact, it is my understanding that since the DNI
is only required to report on directives “active” on the annual October 1st
reporting date, the DNI could in fact cover up all directives by having them
expire on September 30th of the reporting year. I believe that such expansive
authority coupled with lax oversight could lead to the misuse of the power, the
over-issuing of directives, and the hiding of activities that could be
unconstitutional and violations of citizens’ civil liberties. For instance, I
believe that such directives could have been issued to the major
telecommunications firms concerning the sharing of phone call records with the
National Security Agency without citizens’ knowledge or consent.
Because of my concerns, I respectfully request that you provide answers to the
below questions to clarify how the DNI has used or will use its new authority.
While I understand that there may be concerns of revealing classified
information, I have been careful to word the questions in such a manner as to
try not to force the DNI to reveal anything that could truly jeopardize national
security.
Did the DNI request this authority or was it issued because of the initiative of
another? If another, please specify who?
Was there a particular corporate activity that the DNI or another believed
warranted such protection from disclosure and liability?
How many directives has your office issued since May 5, 2006?
Have any directives issued been made retroactive to apply to activities that
corporations may have been engaged in prior to May 5, 2006?
What other departments or agencies have been consulted in issuing those
directives, if any?
How are “matters concerning the national security” determined? Who contributes
to determining something is a matter of national security?
Could directives be issued to telecommunications firms in order to obtain
citizens’ phone records without their knowledge or consent? If so, how would
this be considered an issue of national security that should be covered up?
I appreciate your cooperation and would like your response to the above
questions by June 22, 2006. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact my office at 202-225-2111. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jan Schakowsky
Member of Congress
|
