Jane!

Thank you Senator Dodd.

And thanks Senator Feingold.

And in the full Senate — what happens?

Good.

Reid to support the House bill on Iraq.

Jane writes

If Reid doesn’t file a motion to proceed on the Judiary version, it’s a huge “FU” back to Leahy.

How could Reid do this? Would he try to go with the Intel Committee version and tell Leahy to f*ck-off? Or if he did nothing at all, wouldn’t that mean everything is status quo with the current execrable FISA sunsetting in February? Which would be a good thing I’m thinking as it would mean there would be no amnesty for the TelCos.

Snoopy Dance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep those phone calls coming!

I still don’t understand the business with the Feingold vote.

Tancredo on CNN complaining about american business- that keeps congress from voting to keep illegals out of the country–singles out the US Chamber of Commerce.

dakine01 @ 7

Jane writes

If Reid doesn’t file a motion to proceed on the Judiary version, it’s a huge “FU” back to Leahy.

How could Reid do this? Would he try to go with the Intel Committee version and tell Leahy to f*ck-off? Or if he did nothing at all, wouldn’t that mean everything is status quo with the current execrable FISA sunsetting in February? Which would be a good thing I’m thinking as it would mean there would be no amnesty for the TelCos.

Christy will have more on this tomorrow and will explain it all (she’s still researching) but evidently Reid has several options.

Steve-AR @ 10

I still don’t understand the business with the Feingold vote.

What’s up with Whitehouse’s vote?

dakine01 @ 7

? Or if he did nothing at all, wouldn’t that mean everything is status quo with the current execrable FISA sunsetting in February? Which would be a good thing I’m thinking as it would mean there would be no amnesty for the TelCos.

Dakine, I think I agree with you. I believe I’ve read a few other Brilliant Minds who agree too!
(and remember, Jesus said Where two or more are gathered in my name, lo, there will be politicking and bickering.)

BTW, it’s my understanding that an amendment in the Senate would require a cloture vote (60 votes).

Wow!

“As a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees I have been fighting for months to pass a strong FISA bill that adequately protects the privacy of Americans who are not suspected of having done anything wrong. I will oppose and filibuster any bill on the Senate floor that fails this test or contains retroactive immunity.”– Russ Feingold

I still don’t understand just what happened.

What procedure did Leahy use to report the bill out of committee without Title II intact?

And how does that differ from an amendment, such as the one Feingold introduced, that was defeated?

How could Reid do this? Would he try to go with the Intel Committee version and tell Leahy to f*ck-off?

I don’t think he can, without holding a vote which could be filibustered.

Essentially, when the bill was reported out of the Intelligence Committee, the Senate voted to send it to the Judiciary Committee, rather than consider it. So, in order to consider the Intelligence committee version, a change in normal procedures would have to take place…. and that will require a vote.

dakine01 @ 7

Jane writes

If Reid doesn’t file a motion to proceed on the Judiary version, it’s a huge “FU” back to Leahy.

How could Reid do this? Would he try to go with the Intel Committee version and tell Leahy to f*ck-off? Or if he did nothing at all, wouldn’t that mean everything is status quo with the current execrable FISA sunsetting in February? Which would be a good thing I’m thinking as it would mean there would be no amnesty for the TelCos.

Maybe Reid wants a netroots powered primary challenger to rock his world.

He certainly is acting that way.

CTuttle @ 13

Steve-AR @ 10

I still don’t understand the business with the Feingold vote.

What’s up with Whitehouse’s vote?

Whitehouse remains a huge mystery. I think that I was too cryptic about Feingold, I meant the defeat of his proposal to strip immunity.

My head spins at all this procedural tricker. Glad there’s folks here to help explain it. Learnin’ a lot…

Can a Senator put a hold on an amendment?

Steve-AR @ 21

CTuttle @ 13

What’s up with Whitehouse’s vote?

Whitehouse remains a huge mystery. I think that I was too cryptic about Feingold, I meant the defeat of his proposal to strip immunity.

I agree, Whitehouse voted to defeat Feingold’s amendment, that’s what puzzled me, however, DiFi’s and Kohl’s weren’t so enigmatic… Who was the lone Repug to vote in favor? Hmmm…

And what role did DiFi play in all this?

Steve-AR @ 23

Can a Senator put a hold on an amendment?

Yes…

peanutbutter @ 22

My head spins at all this procedural tricker. Glad there’s folks here to help explain it. Learnin’ a lot…

No doubt, I should be qualified for an associate degree in Firedoglakes remedial citizenry program anytime now.
*G*

Elections matter I would say.

Can a Senator put a hold on an amendment?

no. But they can filibuster one.

***********
just got this from the Dodd campaign…he’s declaring victory

As they say … Breaking News from the Senate.

Forgive me if some of this is in the weeds, I’ll try and make the parliamentary
process as painless as possible.

1. Within the last hour, the Senate Judiciary Committee just reported out a
FISA bill that DOES NOT include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies
that helped the Bush Administration spy on Americans.
2. This means the Judiciary bill moves to the full Senate WITHOUT the
dangerous language included.
3. Retroactive immunity will, however, surely be introduced as an amendment
to the FISA bill.
4. If needed Senator Dodd will filibuster any amendment seeking to add
retroactive immunity to the underlying bill. By filibustering, he will force the
opposition to find 60 votes to pass the provision.

It will be a lot more difficult for those who would enable the erosion of our
Constitution to find the 60 votes necessary to stop immunity on its own than it
would be for us to find the 40 needed to sustain a filibuster of the bill as a whole if it included immunity.

Today is a great victory for all of us — and another example of Chris Dodd’s
leadership.

If it wasn’t for our efforts, together, retroactive immunity would be well on
its way to sailing through the Senate … largely unnoticed.

The fight continues, for sure, but this was a big victory today.

Visit www.ChrisDodd.com for more updates as they happen.

We’ll be in touch.

Tim Tagaris
Chris Dodd for President

goodgirlroxie @ 25

And what role did DiFi play in all this?

She double-dipped, she’s on both SJC and SSCI Committees…

Vote in the morning on stopping the war in the Senate—apparently Reid will make the goopers actually filibuster if they want to block- and stop the business of the senate through the end of the year….

Tough talk- let’s see if it happens.

Millineryman @ 28

Elections matter I would say.

Is that the American or the Japanese pronunciation?

Salazar on CSPAN waxing poetic about farmers– (pr)etending that the farm bill is about little hard working farm families..)

CTuttle @ 26

Steve-AR @ 23

Can a Senator put a hold on an amendment?

Yes…

That would be the easiest way out for Harry..if, big if, he doesn’t want immunity. I don’t think 40-41 votes are there to block cloture.

When we were young we called these Over-ees. Is that okay?

it would appear that DiFi, Kohl, and Whitehouse all agreed to all the two Titles to be separated, and to have only Title 1 voted out.

Basically, they felt the heat/got the message, so while they kept their corporate sponsors happy by voting for immunity, they acceeded to the demand for no immunity when it came down to it.

(I don’t see this happening without Reid’s support; I think he felt the heat, and once the House voted out a FISA bill without immunity, hetold the pro-immunity Dems that he was only appointing anti-immunity Dems to the conference committee…)

CTuttle @ 26

Steve-AR @ 23

Can a Senator put a hold on an amendment?

Yes…

Sorry, a bill can be held, an amendment requires a filibuster/cloture… :-(

Jane, sorry for the OT, but are you and FDL part of BlogHer and doing the convention this summer in SF?

BlogHer is a terrific community of–you guessed it–women bloggers. Although politics is only one of many topics their bloggers focus on, BlogHer is a community growing in influence and purpose, much like Netroots Nation. We’re excited for our two communities–the preeminent online progressive conference and the preeminent women bloggers conference–to meet and work together.

This is just the beginning. We will be announcing the details of this panel, along with other exciting partnerships, including programs involving state level blogospheres, soon. Register before the end of November at a reduced rate. And as always, visit netrootsnation.org for updates or to email us your suggestions.
Reserve your spot for t

I just got here, so sorry if this has been covered. On to read…

p.lukasiak @ 36

it would appear that DiFi, Kohl, and Whitehouse all agreed to all the two Titles to be separated, and to have only Title 1 voted out.

Basically, they felt the heat/got the message, so while they kept their corporate sponsors happy by voting for immunity, they acceeded to the demand for no immunity when it came down to it.

(I don’t see this happening without Reid’s support; I think he felt the heat, and once the House voted out a FISA bill without immunity, hetold the pro-immunity Dems that he was only appointing anti-immunity Dems to the conference committee…)

Interesting, link?

The cloture vote, all R’s, DiFi, Jay, Whitehouse, Kohl, Pryor, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson x 2, Baucas, Lieberman, Johnson etc.

CTuttle @ 26

Steve-AR @ 23

Can a Senator put a hold on an amendment?

Yes…

I believe that you are wrong on this. IIRC, under the Senate rules, just as any Senator can speak as long as they want to on a bill (until a vote of cloture is passed) any member can offer amendments to any bill (unless there is a vote to suspend the rules.)

A “hold” is not part of the rules per se. The majority leader controls the schedule in terms of when bills are given their final vote; and there is a tradition that allows Senators to stop consideration by placing a ‘hold’. But its not a rule.

p.lukasiak @ 41

CTuttle @ 26

Yes…

I believe that you are wrong on this. IIRC, under the Senate rules, just as any Senator can speak as long as they want to on a bill (until a vote of cloture is passed) any member can offer amendments to any bill (unless there is a vote to suspend the rules.)

A “hold” is not part of the rules per se. The majority leader controls the schedule in terms of when bills are given their final vote; and there is a tradition that allows Senators to stop consideration by placing a ‘hold’. But its not a rule.

Sounds about right. Too bad.

“Cloture ayes, and I’ll kiss you
Tomorrow I’ll diss you
Remember I’ll always be true*”

*(to my corporate overlords)

1) Is this all timed so that American families will discuss it over their Thanksgiving gatherings? Iraq occupation, warrantless surveillance of Americans. GOP lookin’ pretty bad at the moment. Could turn into a tipping point.

2) We know FISA revision is DOA without retroactive telco immunity, so this is all coming back again later anyway, after the veto. Or do we now think a veto override can be mustered in the end?

Hmmm.

i ‘m so confused by the separation of title 1 and title 2…. think i will just wait for the video to be available before i try to understand it all.

rwcole @ 31

Vote in the morning on stopping the war in the Senate—apparently Reid will make the goopers actually filibuster if they want to block- and stop the business of the senate through the end of the year….

Tough talk- let’s see if it happens.

Just saw a story on Yahoo that Gates is already complaining that the military funding just passed isn’t enough to conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without special appropriations. Given that Reid prostituted the Dems on Mukasey, in order to use the basic military appropriation as cover for the upcoming Iraq funding proposal, my guess is that Reid is once again playing Charlie Brown to the administration’s Lucy. So my guess is that the filibuster won’t happen.

Interesting, link?

here is greenwald’s take…(update 10)

Apparently, the Committee agreed (by a 10-9 party line vote) to do nothing on amnesty — neither leave it in nor strip it out — and instead left it to a floor fight to determine if amnesty will end up in the bill passed by the Senate. That’s preferable to having the bill sent to the floor with amnesty (because now, it will need 60 votes to overcome Dodd’s filibuster and to support an amnesty-specific amendment to put it back into the bill), but it’s not as clear of a statement as the Committee’s having stripped it out.

Loo Hoo. @ 38

Jane, sorry for the OT, but are you and FDL part of BlogHer and doing the convention this summer in SF?

BlogHer is a terrific community of–you guessed it–women bloggers. Although politics is only one of many topics their bloggers focus on, BlogHer is a community growing in influence and purpose, much like Netroots Nation. We’re excited for our two communities–the preeminent online progressive conference and the preeminent women bloggers conference–to meet and work together.

This is just the beginning. We will be announcing the details of this panel, along with other exciting partnerships, including programs involving state level blogospheres, soon. Register before the end of November at a reduced rate. And as always, visit netrootsnation.org for updates or to email us your suggestions.
Reserve your spot for t

I just got here, so sorry if this has been covered. On to read…

Loo Hoo..speaking of women bloggers, did you read Taylor Marsh’s smack down of Broder? The best part is the picture of Bill and Hillary; their “looks” say a lot about their relationship..

No, I will Steve. Thanks.

The more I see of Dodd the more I like him. I’ve got some complaints with him, but he’s moved up to 2nd place (behind Edwards) from my POV. I’d be thrilled with an Edwards / Dodd ticket, but I don’t see it as a likely scenario.

Sarkozy’s neocon honeymoon appears to be over:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00489.html

We could learn something from the French.

I wonder what Steve Gilliard would have to say about all this. I miss Gilly.

Oh, and… this has nothing to do with Dodd or FISA– it’s just something I wrote today for Daily Kos:

What Happens When All the Soldiers Come Home, about PTSD, trauma and suicide.

Steve-AR @ 10

I still don’t understand the business with the Feingold vote.

You’re not alone! I’m so confused! First I read:

The Senate Judiciary Committee punted on Thursday over whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly helping the government eavesdrop on Americans.

Then I read:

The Senate panel rejected, 11-8, an attempt to strip the immunity provision out of the bill.

Next thing I know:

If the version of the bill that came out of the Judiciary proceeds to the floor, retroactive telecom immunity (which Bush is demanding) will have to be added back in as an amendment — but it will have a much harder time passing if it stands alone without the cover of measures that sound a bit more legitimate in the interest of national security.

but I have no idea how they got here from there!

I don’t understand all this.

The Senate panel rejected, 11-8, an attempt to strip the immunity provision out of the bill.

Which should mean that the immunity provision is in the bill. But Dodd’s team is saying no, its not. So I’m confused, but everyone is doing snoopy dances.

Second thing is, what happened about the basket warrants?

Bob in HI

OMG Jane! I hope the title up top is true.

THANK YOU for your efforts, and your courage.

I’m not even caught up in the slightest with the “flow” here, but blundered into House coverage showing “we” just might save something of what used to be our country’s reputation and future.

If I’m wrong, so be it. But as long as that dear dear Rep. Conyers can control the floor of the House, I have hope.

I can’t stay for now, even tho it’s driving me crazy(!) Will check back.

LOVE and GRATS to all who are working so hard at FDL. The best I could do today was refer a # of influential Congresscritters to FDL’s prose of this a.m.

Duty calls. Back later. Thankyou ALL!

OT..A little info on DOJ #2

The White House has nominated a Chicago federal judge to take the No. 2 post at the Justice Department under new Atty Gen. Michael Mukasey
(snip)
The Harvard Law graduate also clerked for conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who swore him in as a judge in 2004.
(snip)

chitrib

here’s what happened, according to TPM…

But because of a procedural difficulty Specter’s amendment wasn’t voted on — and Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the committee, essentially went around Specter’s amendment and moved to have a vote to report the bill out of committee without any telecom immunity in it. That passed along strictly party lines. And that’s where we are

so it would appear that all the Dems agreed to send the bill out as only Title One.

p.lukasiak @ 41

CTuttle @ 26

Yes…

I believe that you are wrong on this. IIRC, under the Senate rules, just as any Senator can speak as long as they want to on a bill (until a vote of cloture is passed) any member can offer amendments to any bill (unless there is a vote to suspend the rules.)

A “hold” is not part of the rules per se. The majority leader controls the schedule in terms of when bills are given their final vote; and there is a tradition that allows Senators to stop consideration by placing a ‘hold’. But its not a rule.

I realized it, at 37, I issued a retraction! The tradition you mention was agreed upon within the current rules that the Senate has agreed to operate under, which occurs every time the majority changes hands… Like why Reid can’t sack HoJo as Chair of Homeland Security, Chairs are named…

Jane’s upstairs inviting us to debate the debate.

Fabulous coverage ladies. Just a wee bit of congrats on the assist with getting immunity removed! Wow I had only dared to hope that someone besides Chris Dod would stand up!

Oh so glad to see the rule of law upheld. What a relief.

Here is hoping we have enough people that can’t stomach voting to protect law breakders.

Still can’t believe no person has been impeached for this yet.

Anyone know when and where to look for the text of the bill to see about basket warrants? Or does anyone know?

CTuttle @ 24

Steve-AR @ 21

Whitehouse remains a huge mystery. I think that I was too cryptic about Feingold, I meant the defeat of his proposal to strip immunity.

I agree, Whitehouse voted to defeat Feingold’s amendment, that’s what puzzled me, however, DiFi’s and Kohl’s weren’t so enigmatic… Who was the lone Repug to vote in favor? Hmmm…

Shouldn’t the vote be up on roll call? Has anyone tried to look it up? Do they put committee votes on roll call, or is there somewhere else to look for the committee votes?

p.lukasiak @ 47

Interesting, link?

here is greenwald’s take…(update 10)

Apparently, the Committee agreed (by a 10-9 party line vote) to do nothing on amnesty — neither leave it in nor strip it out — and instead left it to a floor fight to determine if amnesty will end up in the bill passed by the Senate. That’s preferable to having the bill sent to the floor with amnesty (because now, it will need 60 votes to overcome Dodd’s filibuster and to support an amnesty-specific amendment to put it back into the bill), but it’s not as clear of a statement as the Committee’s having stripped it out.

Its quite something when a post goes through 10 updates within a few hours. I haven’t seen that much razzle dazzle since the Great Powerline Caper with Rathergate.

Bob in HI

Shouldn’t the vote be up on roll call? Has anyone tried to look it up? Do they put committee votes on roll call, or is there somewhere else to look for the committee votes?

Here is what appears to have happened (based on the TPM report), and this may have been Leahy’s coup… he used a procedural vote to strip out Title II, and these kinds of procedural votes are almost always done on party lines. Its one thing for DiFi to disagree with the Chairman on the contents of the bill — going against the Chair from your own party on a procedural issue is an entirely different matter….

Given the Intelligence committee passed the bill with immunity (Title II), and the SJC voted to NOT strip Title II (immunity) from the bill, it’s just not sensible to conclude that Reid will put up a bill that doesn’t have Title II, based on the pretext that the SJC didn’t amend Title II.
.
The bill that Reid is “most likely” to put before the Senate is Title I as passed by Intelligence and amended by SJC, and Title II as passed by Intelligence, and not-rejected-outright by SJC.
.
I won’t be upset if I’m wrong, but any Senator can offer an amendment to tack Title II back on, if Senator Reid single-handedly undoes what the Intelligence Committee put together and SJC tried, but didn’t reject.

rwcole @ 31

Vote in the morning on stopping the war in the Senate—apparently Reid will make the goopers actually filibuster if they want to block- and stop the business of the senate through the end of the year….

Tough talk- let’s see if it happens.

It’s about time…let the Repubs defend the war in public.

If anyone, EVER, criticizes Rep. Conyers because he talks too slowly, I will smack them senseless.

Good with you, OKK?

What are folks take on Slate article yesterday: “State Your Secrets: The smart way around telecom immunity,” by Justin Florence and Matthew Gerke . They write,

Retroactive immunity isn’t about letting the telecoms off the hook. It’s about hiding the administration’s own legal claims from any judicial or public scrutiny. The administration wants to keep these cases out of court so it can cover up for itself.

Congress can protect the telecoms without falling for this trick. In reforming FISA, Congress should enact a comprehensive law governing the state secrets privilege, one that protects our national security and also allows litigants to make their case in court. Congress figured out this sort of balancing act for criminal cases decades ago when it passed the Classified Information Procedures Act; now it’s time to do the same for civil suits. We agree with the administration that state secrets should be protected at all costs. But this administration can no longer be trusted to use the privilege to protect only genuine secrets. It’s instead covering up its own dubious legal reasoning—not just in the domestic surveillance cases, but also to avoid scrutiny of the torture and rendition programs at issue in the cases of Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar. Someone other than the executive must be able to review whether the executive is abusing the privilege.

Sen. Dodd’s statement on today’s development:

“I’m heartened to see that the Senate Judiciary Committee has affirmed, as I and thousands of other people around the country have, that those telecommunications companies that participated with the Bush Administration in trampling millions of Americans’ civil liberties should not receive retroactive immunity for their participation. This is a victory for the rule of law and everyone who cares about preserving our Constitution.

“Getting results begins with standing for principles that you believe in, stating your position clearly, and working toward that end.

“As the debate over retroactive immunity moves to the Senate floor, I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate my pledge to filibuster any legislation that grants immunity in any form to these telecom companies.”

The problem is that in the Senate there are enough Democrats who will team with Republicans to retroactively legalize the illegal behavior of the telcos.

Feingold’s amendment to strip immunity lost in the committee with three Democrats siding with the Republicans. So 30% of the Committee Democrats oppose stripping immunity from the bill.

There is no way to overlook the fact that enough Democrats will side with Republicans and Bush on this issue to give them a win.

Oh come on… Who among you is so blinded by the light that you can’t see the writing on the wall? The democratic leadership has been compromised and there’s no way of getting around that. Else how do you explain the capitulation?

Somebody needs to take Reid out back and give him the ole one, two. The guy would sell his friggin mother…

Now I’m just gonna sit back and watch and wait for Reid to get fucked over by the Republicans (and some Democrats w/o balls)and see telecom imunity work its way back into the final bill.

How long will that process take? Until they break for Christmas?

If Reid doesn’t file a motion to proceed on the Judiary version, it’s a huge “FU” back to Leahy.

Leahy should be used to it by now.

Any telco complicit with the bush admin in illegal warrantless wiretapping prior to 9/11 deserves to be sued and criminal spying charges brought against the complying executives and bush admin officials involved.

They knew it was illegal then, yet the did it. It is still illegal now.

Bushies are going to be impeached. LOL

Steve-AR @ 57

OT..A little info on DOJ #2

The White House has nominated a Chicago federal judge to take the No. 2 post at the Justice Department under new Atty Gen. Michael Mukasey
(snip)
The Harvard Law graduate also clerked for conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who swore him in as a judge in 2004.
(snip)

chitrib

Posted this last night.

Filip, at 41, is one of the youngest of George W. Bush’s appointees to the Federal Courts. He’s replacing the acting Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford, a career Justice Department prosecutor who temporarily stepped into the job after Paul McNulty, resigned last summer.

It process of Senate confirmation could be time consuming, especially since soon after his prior confirmation and appointment to the Federal Bench he made a controversial $2000 donation to the Bush-Cheney Re-Election Committee.

Filip was nominated for the federal bench in November 2003, and is viewed by the Chicago Bar as a pragmatic and disciplined jurist. He ranked first among federal judges in several categories in a 2006 poll of Chicago-area attorneys. Some have placed him on lists of potential nominees to higher judicial positions with the goal of placing him in a position to be considered for the Supreme Court.

He attended Oxford as a Marshall Scholar after graduating from the University of Illinois in 1988, and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1992. He was vice president of the Harvard Law School Federalist Society and he authored an article entitled “Why Learned Hand Would Never Consult Legislative History Today.”

In that article Filip argued that referring to legislative history should be rejected by judges as it merely reflects desires of congressional staff and lobbyists, and because it does not reflect the majority will of Congress. Filip argued that, when confronted with statutory language that would lead to an absurd result, a judge should apply his or her own reasoning rather than legislative history.

Filip served as clerk in the early 1990’s to Supreme Court Justice Scalia. In 2000 he acted as a poll monitor in Broward County, Florida for the Bush campaign during the controversial hand recounts.

He was a partner with the Chicago-based Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom, where in 2003 he represented several HMO’s facing a class action lawsuit filed by doctors claiming they were cheated on reimbursements.

In 2005 while a Federal judge, he permitted a class action discrimination lawsuit against Daimler-Chrysler Services North America LLC by black car-buyers to go proceed. Filip also served previously as an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, where he received a Justice Department award for his successful prosecution of seven corrupt police officers.

At Mukasey’s swearing-in ceremony earlier this week, Bush said he would announce additional appointments filling some of the 12 highest-ranking Justice Department jobs -including the No. 2 and 3 spots and six assistant attorneys general - currently are held by officials not yet confirmed by the Senate. In addition, two other senior officials have announced their resignations. He may attempt to make some of these “recess appointments” over the Thanksgiving or Christmas Holidays.

Regarding the Putative Hairy Reid Half-Assed Bullshit Politicking Entailing Deferential Compromise to Maintain Sunset Provisions:

I know Christy has checked in below on the blogoline; this may be redundant with something included there or in this comment colloquium (confess I haven’t read everything here). But Leahy has recounted it this way:

“The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed a better, stronger and more balanced bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including reducing the sunset provision from six to four years, to make it easier to make further improvements in the years to come.”

From here (worth reading in full; it’s short):

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200711/111507c.html

Quick recap of highlights from the four-hour Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting mark-up of FISA, that C-SPAN just aired:

1. C-SPAN cut off the last five minutes of its recording, which is when the vote was (presumably) held to vote out Title I as a “substitute” for the Senate Intelligence Committee bill the SJC had received. So I missed the reason why Specter’s ’substitution’ amendment on Title II (which he had just offered, and Whitehouse had just announced he had second degree amendments for) was not voted on. However, the intent was clear - Leahy was having trouble maintaining a quorum, and they had judge nominations to vote on still (they planned to reconvene Friday morning as necessary for more votes, as well). So Leahy was pushing to close out FISA by just passing Title I, and leaving Title II for further discussion and possible floor amendment in some modified form.

2. Leahy, Feinstein and others were talking from the beginning about postponing action on Title II (the immunity provision) because of new proposals that Feinstein in particular wanted to use the upcoming two-week break to further consider (by consulting “Constitutional scholars” and others…). Especially re Specter’s proposal to substitute the government (us) for the giant telecom corporations as the defendants in pending lawsuits. She and others (Whitehouse, Cardin, Specter and maybe Leahy) are looking for ‘a way out’ - a compromise that gives the companies something without (effectively) cutting the Judicial Branch out of the Constitution on this matter. Feinstein was hoping not to have to vote on Feingold’s amendment striking the immunity, at all, I think - in lieu of further study.

3. Feingold is not done with his amendments. He has a “complex” amendment which he has been working hard on in the Intelligence Committee, that apparently directly and significantly amends the program warrant provision, but he didn’t offer it Thursday. [The “program” or “block” spying “core” of this bill was very much in evidence in the discussion during the meeting. It does seem that it may be more limited to communications abroad than the vague language of the bills would indicate, but it is definitely sweeping up Americans without any particularized, probable cause permission from a judge.] Feingold said others were just getting up to speed on the bill’s provisions, and he would hold his amendment until others had a chance to study it more, and presumably then offer it on the floor. He also has another amendment that would refine the bill to have the FISC pre-authorize the programmed surveillance order (rather than letting the Executive Branch proceed and then ask permission), which he withdrew for further discussion with Feinstein and Specter.

4. Many of the Senators sort of think the Fourth Amendment might be a good idea, and maybe worth following, if it’s not too inconvenient. Jon Kyl never heard of it. Russ Feingold is the voice of the American people, and often seems to be accordingly ignored as “too earnest” (or something) by the power brokers.

5. It’s all gone underground now. We’ll be at the mercy of Feinstein, Leahy, and Reid and the Democratic caucus as to timing and content of any bill that Dodd lets onto the floor. But no further Senate action seems likely until the first couple of weeks in December.

p.lukasiak @ 65

Shouldn’t the vote be up on roll call? Has anyone tried to look it up? Do they put committee votes on roll call, or is there somewhere else to look for the committee votes?

Here is what appears to have happened (based on the TPM report), and this may have been Leahy’s coup… he used a procedural vote to strip out Title II, and these kinds of procedural votes are almost always done on party lines. Its one thing for DiFi to disagree with the Chairman on the contents of the bill — going against the Chair from your own party on a procedural issue is an entirely different matter….

WaPo has a link, but it’s never very current unfortunately. I keep looking for better ones.

Congressional Vote Roll Call WaPo under Politics on their toolbar

no government substitution!
RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION.

You want to snoop?
Get a warrant.

We have a CONSTITUTION.
UPHOLD YOUR OATH OF OFFICE!

OATH OF OFFICE!!

The state secrets defense is an excuse to snoop on civilians to use information in any way wanted without oversight. (using secrecy as the excuse you can never know what the information is being used for)

Otherwise. Why are civilians being snooped on?
THIS HAS TO END PEOPLE!!