House Democrats, Republicans United To Tank Kelsey Smith Act Floor Vote

“There are no scheduling updates on future consideration of the Kelsey Smith Act,” a spokesman for Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told us Tuesday. Suspension is a House process used to expedite the consideration of bills deemed noncontroversial, and it's seen as unusual for such legislation to fail.

Democrats announced opposition to the measure Monday, saying the legislation lacks the privacy protections a version from last Congress included (see 1605230057). Fifty-three House Democrats joined the 176 Republicans who voted for the measure, which would mandate telecom companies share location information during public safety emergencies. Democrats who broke ranks by voting in favor included Commerce Committee members Dave Loebsack of Iowa, Gene Green of Texas, Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Bobby Rush of Illinois and Kurt Schrader of Oregon. Other high-ranking Democrats favoring the bill included Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff of California and Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

"The time was now to act,” said Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., in a statement after the measure’s defeat. “The time was now to help families find abducted children, and I’m disappointed my colleagues could not support this narrowly written bill. … The majority of the House supported this measure, so I’m frustrated with my colleagues who voted against providing law enforcement with a critical tool to protect the public in urgent situations where every second counts.”

“I hope the Republicans will work with Democrats to address the bill’s privacy issues and pass important legislation that will provide our nation’s public safety and law enforcement officials the resources they need to protect Americans in harm’s way,” said Green, defending his favorable vote by citing the law enforcement significance and lack of cost to taxpayers.

The 50 Republicans who bucked leadership in voting down the bill included Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, and privacy advocates such as Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Blake Farenthold of Texas, Darrell Issa of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

“The issue was no real oversight, privacy issues and it's completely against the Fourth Amendment,” a spokeswoman for Farenthold emailed Tuesday. She invoked a scenario in which a police officer’s spouse left the officer or may have been having an affair, prompting misuse of the location technology. “While most officers are amazing heroes to our communities, we do know that officers have been in trouble in the past for misconduct for misusing their position to look up info on their significant others," the spokeswoman said. “This is way too much power to be giving them and is very unconstitutional. That said, the bill was drafted to solve a very real issue. But it needs to be drafted in way that keeps the Fourth Amendment and privacy issues in mind. Officers should not be able to get geolocation information based solely on his or her belief that someone is in danger. There is no judicial review, no penalty for abuse, no oversight, no exclusionary rule, and no reporting or notification requirement.”

A last-minute lobbying effort questioned the bill’s implications. “While written with the best intentions, this bill would breach the privacy of millions of Americans by giving law enforcement an unprecedented level of access to the movement, whereabouts and location of targeted individuals,” the R Street Institute said Monday. The Campaign for Liberty also encouraged lawmakers to vote down HR-4889. The American Civil Liberties Union objected to the current version of the bill.

“What it boils down to is this, if a member of my family were facing a life or death emergency where every second counts, I would want and trust law enforcement, rather than my wireless carrier, to make an appropriate and accurate judgement call on what constitutes an emergency and to use every tool available to find them, without being slowed down by unnecessary barriers,” Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., sponsor of the Senate companion bill referred to the Commerce Committee, told us in a statement Tuesday when asked about the failed House vote. “The Kelsey Smith Act has saved lives in the 22 states that have adopted it as law and now it is time to afford the same protection to all citizens regardless of where they may live.” Senate staffers are working to address some of the concerns that cropped up in the House, one staffer told us.