The New York Times paints a bleak picture and predicts another Democratic cave-in on the upcoming debate over the FISA bill.
Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration, Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.
Bush administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened wiretapping authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess, and some Democratic officials admit that they may not come up with the votes to rein in the administration.
But things are not as bleak as the Times would have you believe. There are two proposed bills: one in the House and one in the Senate. The House bill contains language that would force the White House to disclose all aspects of their warrantless wiretapping activities to date (which, given their public comments, could lead to impeachment and conviction). It mandates that a database be kept documenting all subjects of warrantless surveillance. And it does not provide any amnesty for telecommunications corporations that illegally cooperated with the program. At the same time, the bill fixes the problem with the court’s ruling that warrants must be obtained for foreign-to-foreign calls that are merely routed through the United States. Backing up this tough bill are 72 members of the Progressive Caucus that signed a statement of principles that are not to be violated in any bill that they support.
Matters are much different in the Senate. There the bill is in the hands of Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
In the Senate, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, is working with his Republican counterpart, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who was one of the main proponents of the August plan, to come up with a compromise wiretapping proposal. Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Mr. Rockefeller, said that retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies is “under discussion,” but that no final proposal had been developed.
Any bill that is worked out in consultation with Kit Bond is going to violate several of the Progressive Caucus’ inviolate principles. That raises the risk that all the good parts of the House bill will be stripped out in conference.
And, of course, the House bill is totally unacceptable to the Bush administration. But that is the good news. The House has introduced a bill that is unacceptable. But the FISA bill has to pass or the authority to do (legitimate) warrantless surveillance will lapse. The telcoms will have no immunity unless it is expressly granted to them. So, the pressure will be on for something to pass. Filibustering isn’t an attractive option…nor is a veto.
The administration strategy will remain the same. They will try to get Sen. Rockefeller to craft an acceptable bill, then they will fight for its provisions in the conference committee that has to reconcile the House and Senate bills. When this bill goes back to the House (now without the provisions the Progressive Caucus deems essential), the administration hopes to peel off enough Blue Dogs to make up the difference. But seventy-two is a big number to overcome.
Here’s a list of freshman Democrats that unwisely voted for the August FISA bill. Call them and encourage them to hold firm on the language that is passed in the House bill. Tell them not to cross the aisle to vote for a Senate version.
Harry Mitchell AZ-05, (202) 225-2190
Zach Space OH-18, (202) 225-6265
Jason Altmire PA-04, (202) 225-2565
Chris Carney PA-10, 202) 225-3731
Nick Lampson TX-22, (202) 225-5951
Joe Donnelly IN-02, (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth IN-08, (202) 225-4636
Baron Hill IN-09, (202) 225-5315
Tim Walz MN-01, 202) 225-2472
Heath Shuler NC-11, (202) 225-6401
Ciro Rodriguez TX-23, (202) 225-4511.
Tell them you want your rights back. And while you’re at it, call Sen. Rockefeller and tell him that you want a bill that doesn’t violate the statement of principles.
Update [2007-10-9 13:49:38 by BooMan]: I’ve been informed of another procedural risk. After the Democrats introduce and debate their version of the FISA bill, the Republicans will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit with Instructions. Essentially, they will try to pass amendments that will protect the telecommunications companies and otherwise strip the bill of juice. If they succeed, the Judiciary Committee will be compelled to include that language in the bill and send it back for a vote. So, the first hurdle is to prevent Democrats from caving in on this Motion to Recommit vote. Once we pass that test, we’ll still have to prevail in conference. In the conference, the House will probably be represented by the senior members of the Judiciary Committee (Conyers, Nadler, and Bobby Scott). If we get that far, we’re in good shape.
why can’t we just filibuster this sucker and let it die?
As a matter of course, the majority does not filibuster. If the majority filibusters they should just fire the Majority Leader for being a pinhead.
That’d be acceptable.
frankly, at this point in time, it’s probably safe to say that regardless of the final content of this bill, that there will be, absent a veto, a signing statement attached and the administration will continue doing what it damn well pleases.
it will be interesting to watch to see who caves though, and how well the 72 members of the progressive caucus hold together.
l’m becoming easily amused…
the kabuki kontinues.
lTMF’sA
As John Dean said, Bush is the first president to confess to committing an impeachable offense. And the offense was FISA violations.
They need a bill not only to do needed surveillance, but also to inoculate themselves and the telcos. They are not going to be in power that much longer and they cannot rely on a Democratic president to protect them. Well…actually…they probably can. But they would prefer not to have to take that risk.
Signing statements probably aren’t going to very helpful if the law requires full disclosure of the program’s history and fails to protect the telcos.
They can issue a states secrets privilege to protect themselves until the end of their presidency…but after?
dean is right…and impeachment is off the table
your second point you answered yourself…they probably can…though l would say that ‘probably’ is an unnecessary qualifier
they’ll use the states secrets privilege to get through the term, and given the potential slaughter coming at the ballot box, the new democratic president…not a forgone conclusion in my mind…will find it prudent not to pursue the matter[s]…as a healing gesture for the nation…ala ford/nixon.
l’ve seen this movie, didn’t like the ending
lTMF’sA
What I’m worried about is the “Bait and Switch” that we’ve seen before. Remember how they put up a decent bill, don’t work to get support, let it fail and pass something dreadful instead. That way people like Ken Salazar can say that they REALLY wanted the good bill, but had to vote for the bad one instead.
I don’t trust them and I’m tired of using my energy for no discernible benefit.
We need to find a lever and a pivot point.
see my update for how your fear might come true.
That was fast.
So why didn’t we use all these techniques when the Dems were in the minority?
Booman, I’ve been thinking about levers the past few days and I was wondering what you know about staffers. Could we effect some change by keeping a list of the staffers of Democrats who support the Bush agenda and then get our new, progressive folks to pledge not to hire them? That could change the way they present data to congresspeople from “Some stupid left wingers called” to “985 constituents called against the FISA capitulation.”
We need new people-infrastructure.
The staffers I know are, for the most part, more sympathetic to our cause than their bosses. The problem seems to be more from consultants. Of course, I don’t communicate with that many staffers, but I do have contacts on Reid and Pelosi’s staff, on some of the committee staffs too. Sometimes I get emails about how heartsick they are. None moreso than over the August FISA debacle. They really want to win this, but they have a caucus that can’t shoot straight. I don’t know how to really implement your idea, but I like the creativity of it.
Thanks. I find it quite – not reassuring, but something like it- that the staffers are frustrated as well.
I don’t like putting my time, energy and money down a black hole so I’m going to keep thinking about leverage. There must be a more effective way.
the worst part is that you feel like beating the shit of them and then they come off as so pathetic that you don’t have the heart to do it.
They feel like they’re taking a beating everyday. And the last thing they need is a bunch of sympatico lefties telling them they have no balls.
But, I sometimes tell them that anyway.
in august in the house: on friday, the house bill was brought up under a suspension of the rule that required 2/3 vote to pass… so although a majority voted for it, it failed. then on saturday, the senate bill was brought up under an UC for a simple majority required to pass.
see all the gory details here.
Great explanation of the backroom maneuvering around this bill, Boo. What’s your take on why people like Rockefeller insist on pre-caving to Bush? Do they really think warantless wiretapping is a good thing? Are they
taking bribespandering to contributors? What?This bill is a uniquely revealing case of Dems bending over when there is absolutely no need for them to do so. They have all the power to block any FISA until they get exactly what they want. If the Reps filibuster or otherwise try to maneuver, if Bush vetoes, they don’t get any bill at all. So why are they still cowering? If a bad bill passes, there will be no cover for the leadership or any Dem that caved.
Re the conference committee, do you know whether the House can tie the committee’s hands on any compromise, or are they essentially free agents?
Couple of thoughts.
What I was trying to ask above: Could the House just send its representatives to the conference to say “our way or the highway”, our version or no version at all?
I’m still learning about conferences, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I believe this is how it works.
The House sends conferees (the majority gets more) and the Senate sends conferees (again, the majority gets more).
You have two versions of the bill. If the Senate, for example, immunizes the telcos while the House does not…where does the majority lie?
If the Senate Dems insist on immunization and the Republicans stand firm, then the House Dems will be outvoted.
To determine the odds you need to know the exact number of conferees from both Houses and their party. That, I do not know, although I think the House will send 3 Dems and 2 Republicans. I’m just not sure on that.
I wrote to Sen. McCaskill after her vote in favor of expanding wiretapping powers in August, and will do so again. Not sure what she’s thinking, if she’s been lobbied by Kit Bond. I will note she has a background as a prosecutor, which might explain her bent on this. Very frustrating that I wholeheartedly supported her.
well, did my duty. I was not as nice as I ususally am. I think they got an ear full of my arrogance and that they did not like the old lady with such a firm voice on such a matter. I reminded them all of the oath they all took to defend the constitution and that of foreign and domestic enemies. They all really need to look into their hearts of hearts and consider the laws that our nation have/had in place before this administration started to deconstruct them and that this is not my country any more. I want it back…
I want the fact that hoyer and bond can hold hand in hand when they both jump from the highest bridge they can find when doing their ghastly deeds to the American ppl. I want the telecommunications held responsible. I want any and all persons held responsible for there has never been any person held responsible for anything for going on 7 years now. I am very tired of this going on.
HJC markup hearing on FISA tomorrow morning:
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
10:15 am – House Judiciary
Markup of: H.R. 3773 the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007”
the hearing is scheduled to be covered live by c-span2 (and live webcast at the committee’s website).
details and links for this hearing (and others, if you’re interested) at the weekly congressional hearing list i’ve been doing (it was requested over at fdl, but sharing is good 🙂 ).
House leadership willing to grant immunity.
With Dems like Hoyer, the Republican’s dream of one party rule by the Republicans can be realized no matter whose candidates win the elections.