SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tom udall
Former Sen. Udall and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte Support Lawsuit to Reveal Details of Government's Secret Mass Surveillance
Former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) are supporting a lawsuit by Demand Progress Education Fund (DPEF) and the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA) filed against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. These two civil liberties organizations seek to compel the government to disclose whether it has secretly concluded it may conduct mass surveillance of people in the United States in the absence of Congressional authorization or court order.
Mar 15, 2021
Former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) are supporting a lawsuit by Demand Progress Education Fund (DPEF) and the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA) filed against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. These two civil liberties organizations seek to compel the government to disclose whether it has secretly concluded it may conduct mass surveillance of people in the United States in the absence of Congressional authorization or court order. This weekend, the two former members of Congress also published an op-ed about this issue.
"In October, Mark and I added our names to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice, the FBI and other agencies asking for information about possible mass surveillance of American citizens," said Bob Goodlatte, senior policy advisor to PPSA. "They did not bother to reply. So Demand Progress Education Fund and PPSA are going to court to get answers to our questions."
The state of domestic intelligence surveillance is unclear with the expiration of Section 215, known as the "business records provision" of the PATRIOT Act (later amended and reauthorized by the USA FREEDOM Act). Section 215 governed the surveillance of a wide range of personal information held by businesses with an elastic standard: If the FBI asserted such data was relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation, it did not need a warrant to access it.
"What legal authority governs surveillance today?" Goodlatte asked. "The truth is, not even Congress is allowed to know. We do know that those in government and their defenders have sometimes claimed that they have an 'inherent' power to surveil Americans."
A fulsome response to the underlying DPEF/PPSA FOIA request (available here) would answer the following questions:
- Are the legal theories that previous administrations relied on to secretly conduct mass domestic surveillance of people in the United States still operative?
- One authority cited for this proposition by then-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC), Executive Order 12333, is not a statute. What guidance is the government giving agencies on the limits of 12333?
- Is the government treating Americans' web browsing information as presumptively foreign, thereby avoiding privacy protections for people in the United States?
- Is the government relying on a legal theory - as it did at least from 2001 through 2004 - that its inherent authority displaces the rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when the two conflict?
- Has the government secretly concluded that it may purchase information about people in the United States, for instance the enormous and growing troves held by data brokers, with no Congressional or judicial oversight?
"In December, the public learned that the whole time the DOJ and FBI were urging Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act, more was at stake than even members of Congress knew," said former Senator Mark Udall, who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "And since the partial Patriot Act sunset one year ago, the public also learned that the government has been secretly buying records about people in the United States without any Congressional authorization or judicial due process. This dangerous shell game of domestic mass surveillance must stop long enough for Congress to have its say: the stakes impact the privacy of every person in the United States."
"Every American is already concerned about the potential for misuse of the massive amounts of our data held by businesses, and clearly the problem is getting worse," Goodlatte said. "The American people deserve to know if our records are being accessed without Congressional authorization or judicial due process."
DPEF educates more than two million members and the general public about matters pertaining to the democratic nature of our nation's communications infrastructure and governance structures. PPSA is a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizens who advocate for greater protection of our privacy and civil liberties in government surveillance programs.
Background on the Issue
- A civil liberties coalition called for transparency in May;
- Sens. Leahy (D-VT) and Lee (R-UT) sent a letter in July to the AG and DNI raising concerns, asking a number of critical questions, and concluding reliance on inherent executive authority in lieu of Section 215 would be "plainly illegal";
- Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) asked related questions of Attorney General Barr at a hearing in July;
- A coalition further honed this fact-finding mission and thoroughly substantiated these concerns in August;
- Dozens of Representatives, led by Reps. Davidson (R-OH) and Jayapal (D-WA), further advanced these questions in a letter demanding answers in September; and
- In December, Charlie Savage of The New York Times broke the story that the government had secretly interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act as empowering the FBI to put a warrantless dragnet around a website. As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) noted, there is no guarantee the FBI or NSA "wouldn't use the Patriot Act to intentionally collect Americans' web browsing information in the future."
The government has missed the relevant deadlines and refused to provide answers in every case.
In August, Rep. Eshoo (D-CA) also demanded information about what surveillance of the legislative and judicial branches has occurred. After being refused a substantive answer, she called on the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to investigate the issue. Similarly, Reps. Eshoo and Rush (D-IL) and Senator Wyden (D-OR) just called on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to investigate executive branch surveillance of protesters.
The FOIA request is available here.
Additional context is available here.
Additional background on Section 215 is available at www.Section215.org.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sweeping Proposal Would Protect Kids, Farmworkers - and Everyone - From Toxic Pesticides
Bill Introduced by Sen. Udall, Rep. Neguse Would Ban All Organophosphate, Neonic Pesticides
Aug 04, 2020
Legislation introduced today would ban or restrict scores of the most toxic pesticides, introduce health-protective restrictions on pesticide use and registration, and create new safety protections for farmworkers - the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's pesticide law in nearly 25 years.
The bill by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) would significantly strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, to regulate the distribution, sale and use of pesticides. The Protect America's Children from Toxic Pesticide Act of 2020 would ban some of the most toxic pesticides used in the U.S., including all organophosphates, neonicotinoids and paraquat.
Among the pesticides that would be banned are chlorpyrifos, which can damage children's brains and was slated for phaseout by the Obama administration, a proposal reversed under President Trump's EPA. The bill would also ban malathion, which has been linked to increased risk of prostate cancer, and imidacloprid, which, like other neonicotinoids, poisons bees and other pollinator insects.
Children are especially susceptible to health risks from pesticide exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which urges stricter pesticide regulations, says evidence links early-life pesticide exposure to pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.
"Numerous studies show that existing EPA regulations for pesticides fail to protect children's health," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG vice president for science investigations. "The federal pesticide policy is in urgent need of reform."
Under the proposed legislation, the EPA would be required to immediately suspend and review the use of any pesticide that is banned in the European Union or Canada. The list of such pesticides includes the notorious herbicide atrazine, which disrupts hormones, harms the developing fetus and contaminates the drinking water of millions of Americans.
"We applaud Sen. Udall and Rep. Neguse for this bold and much-needed proposal to overhaul the nation's pesticide law that puts the health and safety of children, farmworkers and all Americans first," said EWG senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber.
"The pesticide industry and chemical agriculture have for far too long been able to abuse legal loopholes allowing for the use of toxic pesticides that have not been adequately tested to make sure they are safe for people and the environment," Faber said. "As a result, millions of Americans are exposed to dangerous pesticides in their air, water and food. The Udall-Neguse plan will rein in this largely unchecked explosion of pesticide use by agriculture and give the EPA much stronger authority to protect the public."
The legislation would also set new restrictions on the "conditional registration" loophole within the FIFRA law that allows pesticide manufacturers to get new chemicals approved and into the marketplace before the EPA has reviewed all the available science to determine if it is safe.
The legislation also calls for measures to protect farmworkers. It would require pesticide labels to be printed in English and Spanish, require employers to report injuries to farmworkers from pesticide exposure, and require the suspension of a pesticide when it causes a death of a farmworker.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senator Udall Introduces "Long Overdue" Legislation to Overhaul U.S. Pesticide Rules
Children’s health, farmworker and healthy farming advocates applaud proposed updates to antiquated federal law
Aug 04, 2020
Today, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) introduced the "Protect America's Children from Toxic Pesticides Act," which would update U.S. pesticide rules to be more in line with more health-protective laws in other countries.
The bill would also provide immediate protections for farmworkers, who are on the frontline of workplace pesticide exposure and also face increased health risks during the current pandemic.
"Our pesticide rules were established to get products quickly to market, not to protect workers, families or the environment," says Kristin Schafer, Executive Director of Pesticide Action Network (PAN). "Other countries have managed to stand up to pesticide industry pressure, follow the science and put measures in place that prioritize public health and the environment -- while maintaining agricultural productivity. It's high time we caught up, and this bill is a good first step."
Each year the U.S. uses over one billion pounds of pesticides -- nearly a fifth of worldwide usage -- and use levels are rising.
The current pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 ("FIFRA") contains many provisions that prioritize pesticide industry interests above the health and safety of people and our environment. For example once approved, pesticides often remain on the market for decades, even when scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows harm to people or the environment.
Because of the outdated law, the U.S. continues to allow widespread application of many agricultural pesticides that have been banned in other countries. According to a recent analysis from the Center for Biological Diversity, hundreds of millions of pounds of agricultural pesticides are applied in the U.S. each year that have been banned in the European Union (EU), China and Brazil. Specifically, the U.S. applies 320, 40 and 26 million pounds of chemicals that the EU, China and Brazil, respectively, have deemed too dangerous to use within their borders.
"Farmworkers are not mere statistics, but real people with vibrant families who risk exposure to pesticides every day so the rest of us can have food to eat," says Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety Coordinator with the Farmworker Association of Florida. "Just as the COVID-19 health crisis has laid bare the reality of racial disparities suffered by Black and Brown communities, so too, farmworkers suffer disproportionately from chronic health problems related to pesticides. And farmworker children are at much higher risk for birth defects and neuro- and developmental health problems from these exposures. FIFRA reform is urgent and long overdue -- farmworkers are 'essential' not 'expendable!'"
The Protect America's Children from Toxic Pesticides Act would phase out products scientifically proven to be particularly harmful to human health and the environment, including:
- Organophosphate insecticides, which have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in farmworkers and children;
- Neonicotinoid insecticides, which contribute to pollinator collapse around the world and have recently been shown to cause developmental defects, heart deformations, and muscle tremors in unborn children; and
- Paraquat, one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world -- according to the EPA, just "one sip can kill." Science has shown that chronic exposure to paraquat increases risk of developing Parkinson's disease by 200% to 600%. It is already banned in 32 countries.
The bill also provides significant protections for frontline communities that bear the brunt of pesticide exposure, prohibits the use of old stockpiles of banned pesticides, requires listing of "inert" ingredients on all pesticide products, and closes dangerous loopholes for emergency exemptions and conditional registrations.
In addition, it immediately suspends use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the EU or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"The science is crystal clear," says PAN Senior Scientist Margaret Reeves. "These chemicals are putting our health, environment and food supply at risk and we must help farmers move away from them. Senator Udall's bill puts science, public health and on-farm resilience over corporate profits -- it's passage is urgently needed and would finally put us on the right track."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular