Republicans shift, a little, on surveillance rules

A months-long logjam over a new government surveillance bill may be coming to an end, with Republicans offering a compromise that would let people who think they were illegally spied on by the government have their day in court - albeit a secret one.

House and Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled their latest proposal aimed at resolving the roughly 40 civil lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated in the so-called warrantless wiretapping program.

The Republican proposal makes other concessions. It would:

-Allow an inspector general investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program.

-Allow a secret court to review in advance a government's plan for the surveillance of non-U.S. citizens abroad to make sure the privacy of Americans they may come in contact with is protected.

-Confirm that the new law would be the exclusive authority to conduct electronic surveillance - essentially outlawing a revival of the warrantless wiretapping in the future.

House and Senate staff from both parties said the proposal represents a real shift toward the House Democratic surveillance bill.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he received the GOP proposal Wednesday and is reviewing it.

The most important shift comes in the matter of the telecom lawsuits.

The companies allegedly allowed the government to eavesdrop in the United States on phone and computer lines for nearly six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks without the permission of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court created 30 years ago precisely for that purpose. Those lawsuits are pending before a single federal court.

The White House favors the Senate version of an electronic surveillance bill that grants full immunity to the telecommunications companies. The House-approved version would let the cases go to court, leaving it up to judges to determine whether the companies acted illegally.

The new Republican proposal- which Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri said is backed by the White House and intelligence agencies- would allow the FISA court to decide. It would require the attorney general to certify that the companies acted lawfully and at the request of the president.

The court would be allowed to read the requests to telecom companies for the wiretaps to be placed, and the plaintiffs could file their complaints with the court. The court could dismiss the lawsuits if it finds that supported by "a preponderance of the evidence."

"We have to draw a line in the sand and say we've compromised enough," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

Smith said at a Republican news conference that he and other lawmakers were coming forward to pressure Democrats to accept their proposal.

"There's not a whole lot farther you can go without seriously damaging" national security, said Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Hoyer called Republican "rhetoric" at the news conference "unhelpful."

The American Civil Liberties Union says the Republican compromise language on telecom immunity is not an improvement over the original Senate bill. The FISA court is still not empowered to determine whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal- just whether the attorney general sent a letter to the companies requesting assistance.

The compromise "just says that the existence of an order - whether legal or not - is enough to dismiss the cases," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant with the ACLU.

The new surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States- for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.

(This version CORRECTS the court would review a government plan for surveillance of non-U.S. citizens abroad, not U.S. citizens.)