Panel: Make NSA get warrants for phone records

WASHINGTON -- Requiring a U.S. spy agency to obtain a warrant each time it wants customer records from phone companies isn't a burden and won't hinder terrorism probes, members of a White House advisory panel told lawmakers.

Panel members testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday defended a recommendation they made to President Barack Obama to prohibit the National Security Agency from collecting and storing bulk phone records, such as numbers dialed and call durations.

"I do not believe that we're going to add a substantial burden to the government," said Michael Morell, a former deputy CIA director and member of the panel. The government also could have emergency authority to obtain the records and then seek a court warrant at a later time, Morell said.

The group made the recommendation in a Dec. 18 report to Obama, who is expected to announce Friday what could amount to the most significant changes to U.S. spy programs since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A central issue is whether to listen to the review group and have phone companies or a third party retain bulk phone records rather than the NSA.

Obama and lawmakers are considering restraints on government surveillance in response to a domestic and international backlash against the extent of NSA spying exposed since June by former government contractor Edward Snowden.

Removing the NSA from collecting and storing bulk phone records would "substantially" reduce the potential for government abuse, said Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor. Panel members testified that they didn't find any previous abuses.

The review group also recommended that the secret court that oversees NSA spying review and approve applications for national security orders, which are government demands for information. Currently, the government can issue the letters through an administrative process without court approval.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, a former presiding judge on the secret court, criticized that idea. He said requiring the court to approve the letters could increase its work by more than 20,000 cases per year and "would fundamentally transform" the responsibilities of the body.