You're quoting from the bill as drafted at the end of May. The uproar is over a last-minute re-write that changed the retention requirement to include names, banking information, etc and a vote that rejected an amendment to overturn that change.

So, yes, there's not much to freak out about in the May 25th draft. Which is why there wasn't a story until the middle of June when the DoJ started shopping around a proposal to expand the logs: http://news.cnet.com/Your-ISP-as-Net-watchdog/2100-1028_3-57...

And people didn't get really fired up about this particular bill, until it was amended to include some of DOJ's wishlist, and made it out of committee with those changes intact: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-panel-a...

I can't find the amended text on Thomas, but what you've quoted is not what has everyone worked up.