The House passed its version of the Fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act last Friday, despite widespread Democratic dissent.
Integral to this authorization is the ‘Congressional Security and Privacy Amendment’, a continuation of the ‘Daniel Andrel Judicial Security and Privacy Act’ from 2022.
The ‘Daniel Andrel Judicial Security and Privacy Act’ allows federal judges to remove personal information from government websites. It also empowers judges to prevent individuals and businesses from sharing phone numbers and addresses online. [Source]
Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) want the amendment to extend similar protections enjoyed by judges to lawmakers, shielding their personal information online to enhance their safety and privacy.
However, this bold move wasn’t received well by pro-transparency groups. They are concerned about the amendment’s potential for abuse.
Daniel Schuman of Demand Progress argues that the amendment “would enable corruption to flourish undetected.”
The amendment focuses on removing information from commercial databases. Journalists and watchdog organizations often use these databases to track potential conflicts of interest related to investments, real estate, and other financial dealings.
By limiting access to this information, the amendment could inadvertently hamper the efforts of journalists to hold public officials accountable.
“This provision contains serious constitutional, prudential, and implementation problems that undercut its apparent intention of addressing privacy issues regarding elected leaders and those closely associated with them. It sacrifices free speech while providing a mirage of security to lawmakers and their loved ones,” argues Daniel Schuman. [Source]
Senator Amy Klobuchar countered these views, arguing that the measure isn’t an affront to legitimate forms of journalism or a cover-up for corrupt practices. Rather, it is a necessary step in response to growing security concerns.
Referencing the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband last year, Klobuchar affirmed the urgent need to protect lawmakers from such horrendous acts of violence, which are made easier by the free access to personal information online.
After her speech, Klobuchar told POLITICO, “This is for, solely for, private information that allows deranged people to show up and basically hit the Speaker of the House’s husband over the head with a hammer.” [Source]
“The press will know a lot of things like where people live, but… all of our personal information out there on the internet really does lead to some of this,” added the Senator.
Should ensuring our lawmakers’ security come at the cost of transparency?
Proponents of transparency say the amendment’s provisions might be too broad. While the Congressional Security and Privacy Amendment is well-intentioned, it has sparked legitimate concerns.
A more nuanced approach may be necessary — one that allows lawmakers to fulfill their duties without undermining the principles of transparency and accountability.
The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 by a slim margin. The final vote was 219-210. [Source]
The Senate will take up its version of the NDAA, setting the stage for further debate and negotiation. Despite the House’s approval of the Act, it’s far from certain that it will become law in its current form.