Feb. 28, 2008: Al Qaeda debate gives way to impending vote on housing package

McConnell says that Republicans are interested in a housing bill

[17:29]
Minority leader McConnell says that he offered Reid an agreement to proceed to the housing bill with each side offering five amendments. But Reid turned down the offer. A cloture vote on a motion to proceed to the bill then failed.

Reid takes insult at a McConnell assertion that Reid didn't run the bill by banking committee chairman Chris Dodd (CT). It's hard for me to conceive how my friend could say that, he says.

Vote on Democratic housing bill

[17:07]

Here are the votes:

Aye: Dems and
Nay: Reps and

It falls, with 48 ayes and 46 nays. 60 ayes needed. This was a housing bill that among other things, offered $4b in funds to subsidize the purchase of foreclosed properties.

After the bill, Reid says that the big banks just won again.

I am hearing something about Republicans opposing progress on the bill because Harry Reid (NV) filled the amendment tree. I was not aware of this. Filling the tree means controlling what amendments can be offered. But Reid has said something similar to what he said when he filled the tree on the Farm Bill. Come to me with your amendments, Republicans, let's talk. If we can agree to the language on them we can vote on them. But we can't vote on them if you oppose cloture on the motion to proceed. It's another game of chicken.

Reid pleas for Republicans to consider housing package

[16:46]
Senators will soon be voting on a motion to proceed to legislation addressing the rise of foreclosures. Sixty votes are necessary to begin debate on the bill. It is not likely to pass, according to Mel Martinez (FL). The way Reid is now talking it sounds as though the Republicans will indeed oppose cloture on the motion to proceed.

Yesterday, senators invoked cloture on a motion to proceed to legislation requiring the U.S. gov't to articulate a strategy for defeating al Qaeda. It first appeared that the Senate would be locked in debate on that legislation for 30 hours, post-cloture.

That is not the case. I looked in the Senate off and on all day and I didn't hear much about al Qaeda. It's possible I missed a senator talk about the U.S. strategy to defeat al Qaeda but I didn't see it. I heard about Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq. But nothing about Osama bin Laden or Waziristan.

The two sides of the aisle must've agreed that they didn't want to spend thirty hours talking about al Qaeda, as they spent 30 hours discussing Iraq on Tuesday and Wednesday after senators invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to a similar piece of legislation (also the work of Russ Feingold (WI)) requiring that the U.S. begin to redeploy troops from Iraq within 120 days.

Senate will spend 30 hours on al Qaeda strategy

[9:34]
Just as the Republicans did with a Feingold measure calling for redeployment of troops from Iraq, they will force the Senate to burn through the maximum of 30 hours post-cloture debate. Majority leader Harry Reid (NV) complains now about this on the floor but I'm wondering why he brought the al Qaeda strategy legislation to a vote if 30 hours of debate was too much for him.

He wants to talk about Iraq it seems. He is holding up newspapers. He says that 30 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq this month, more than one a day for the month, he says.

So, the pending business is al Qaeda but Reid talks only about Iraq. Jon Kyl (AZ) follows for the minority. He is talking mostly about Iraq, but also about al Qaeda in Iraq. Two birds with one stone.

Precap:

[9:30]
Senators agreed overwhelmingly yesterday to begin debating the U.S. strategy for defeating al Qaeda. The pending legislation is a Feingold measure requiring the Executive to formulate a strategy for eradicating al Qaeda.

Feb. 27, 2008: Switching tack, senators vote to begin debate on bill calling for Executive to submit al Qaeda strategy

Senate will adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow

[19:44]
Morning business of one hour. The resume consideration of motion to proceed to S. 2634, with any time counting post-cloture. That passes. Senate adjourns until 9:30 tomorrow. The pending business will be the al Qaeda strategy bill. Debate on this bill will now consume the Senate through Friday.

Republicans welcome al Qaeda debate

[19:42]
Senators jump from Iraq debate to al Qaeda. Senators voted to proceed on a motion to consider a second Feingold foreign policy bill, this one calling for the Executive to establish a policy to defeat al Qaeda. Republicans welcomed the debate.

Richard Burr (NC) just spoke about health care. Ken Salazar now takes the Senate into a period of morning business. This is Senate business. Salazar could one day handle a more important role in the Senate for the Democrats.

Procedural vote is on bill calling for U.S. to declare an al Qaeda strategy

[18:27]

This is not the Iraq redeployment legislation, this is S. 2634. Sixty voted needed to proceed to debate on the bill. The bill: "Directs the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security to jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth U.S. global strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates."

the Votes:

Aye: Alexander Allard Bunning Conrad Craig Crapo Durbin Feingold Grassley McConnell Reed Sununu Thune.

Nay: Hagel (NE), Enzi (WY).

89-3, the motion is agreed to.

They are moving forward with this thing.

I find it surprising that Republicans would support the bill as it now stands. It is possible that the Republicans are making a play to take over this legislation. Recall that the FISA bill was commandeered by the Republicans at one point, filibustered by Dodd et al. The Republicans are saying, OK, we'll take the opportunity to amend that bill. We'll hold some tough national security votes and see who will come along.

This will pass and be the pending business of the Senate. It will be open to amendment unless the amendment process gets screwy again.

John Warner was present for this vote, voted aye. No one has voted against it yet. It would be interesting to hear some al Qaeda debate as opposed to Iraq debate. But how much of its strategy should the U.S. be ready to share with the public?

No sign of the presidents-to-be.

Reid queries the benefit of blind soldiers

[18:19]
Four thousand troops dead, says Reid. "How many blind soldiers do we need? ... When is enough enough? We're gonna start in a few days the sixth year of this war." He says that Iraq is a wealthy nation, that is has a bunch of oil. He suggests Iraq can take care of itself.

Republicans aren't serious enough about Iraq. How can they object to this? he wonders. Now Reid is making a reference to Keith Olberman. How Olberman signs off his broadcasts by saying the number of days since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

Now Durbin, Dick Durbin, from Illinois, the majority whip. He says, Yeah, Reid you're right. The war in Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. But Maria Cantwell (WA) says from the chair that the majority's time has expired. Durbin looks dumbfounded. McConnell yields back time. We're gonna have this vote now.

They're still talking about Iraq, but a vote is on the way

[18:11]
There is going to be a second procedural vote on this Feingold bill redeploying troops out of Iraq. A second bill calls for defining a policy in the war on al Qaeda. McConnell is coming at these bills hard, saying if Feingold is so worried about fighting al Qaeda he should urge the House to pass the Senate's version of new FISA legislation.

Anyway, at 18:30 a cloture vote on the bill itself, a vote on whether or not debate should come to an end. I don't believe the Republicans will vote for cloture. But maybe they'll call the Democrats' bluff. Offer up a bunch of national security amendments, maybe get them passed. But I believe the Republicans will vote against cloture, effectively killing the bill. Voting will begin shortly.

Iraq redeployment debate continues

[16:30]
It's been rather uneventful today in the Senate. Republicans are forcing senators to burn through the maximum 30 hours of debate following a successful cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a Feingold bill facilitating redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. It all feels perfunctory to me, nothing we haven't heard before.

Several senators are using their time to talk about other topics. There haven't been any votes today.

Corker doesn't want housing bill to "see the light of day"

[9:56]
This is the housing bill that Democrats wish they were working on instead of debating Iraq. Bob Corker (TN) says that the bill would be an "unmitigated disaster" and he calls for help in making sure "that it doesn't see the light of day." This is telling me that Republicans will be voting against cloture on any motion to proceed to consideration of the bill, preventing Democrats from getting the 60 votes they need to begin debate on the bill.

This is a housing bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the amount of principal that insolvent homeowners owe to mortgage lenders on home loans. It is an attempt to stave off the Dem-espied foreclosure crisis.

Reid moves to have post-cloture time yielded back, McConnell objects

[9:50]
Democrats yesterday initiated an Iraq War debate by holding a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to a Russ Feingold bill purporting to redeploy troops from Iraq. Republicans agreed to cloture, clearing the way for a maximum of 30 hours post-cloture debate. If any senator insists, the Senate must spend 30 hours on the underlying legislation. Republicans have so insisted.

Harry Reid (NV) began the morning by asking for unanimous consent that "all post-cloture time be yielded back." Reid wants to move on to a housing-related bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to shave off the amount of principal that insolvent homeowners owe to mortgage lenders.

Mitch McConnell (KY) objected to Reid's request. McConnell said that several members on his side have recently been to Iraq and want to talk about the success that the U.S. is having in Iraq.

So, the Democrats have brought on this Iraq debate but now they seem to want to get out of it and move on. The Republicans are enjoying a means to frustrate the agenda of the majority.

Byrd and Warner in hospital

I had mentioned earlier today that John Warner (VA) was admitted to a D.C.-area hospital for observation after experiencing an irregular heartbeat, the same condition that hospitalized Warner in October.

I am now reading that Robert Byrd (WV) has also been sent to the hospital with complaints of pain following a fall on Monday evening. Byrd, who has cast more votes in the Senate than any other senator, showed up for work Tuesday morning nonetheless and voted in the first of two roll call votes on Tuesday before heeding to advice that he admit himself to the hospital for observation. He missed an afternoon roll call vote.

Byrd has still been present on the Senate floor in 2008 but he has not recently given the rousing sort of speech that he gave in 2007 concerning attempts to pass something akin to a line-item veto act.

Feb. 26, 2008: Republicans support cloture on Feingold legislation, sparking Iraq War debate

Senate returns tomorrow at 9:30

[21:48]
It will conduct a period of morning business before resuming debate on the motion to proceed on S. 2633, a Feingold act that purports to provide for the safe redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Republicans agreed to hold debate on the measure and appear willing to subject the Senate to the maximum of 30 hours of debate. This would effectively keep the Senate occupied for all of tomorrow.

Iraq War debate delays work on housing legislation

[18:00]
Senators voted in favor of a motion to proceed to a bill offered by Russ Feingold (WI) that prohibits the Congress from authorizing funds for the purpose of deploying troops to Iraq. Instead, the legislation would initiate the redeployment of troops out of Iraq.

Initially one wonders why Republicans would support a cloture motion on such legislation. Indeed, most votes against the motion were from Democrats.

However, successful cloture on a motion to proceed to a piece of legislation is an agreement to spend a maximum of 30 hours of debate on a bill. In this case, the Republicans welcomed debate on the War in Iraq. They are apparently willing to force the Senate to spend the maximum 30 hours of post-cloture debate on the legislation, effectively preventing the Senate from proceeding to any other legislation. Democrats had planned to hold a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to legislation allowing courts to reconfigure home mortgage terms to stave off foreclosures.

So, this afternoon has seen a back-and-forth between senators of the two parties debating Iraq policy among other things. Johnny Isakson refuted a Democratic claim that the Bush administration had no policy in the war on terror. We do have a policy, said Isakson, It's called pre-emption. And as far as Isakson can tell, it's working pretty well. He pointing to the absence of attacks post-9/11.

Lindsey Graham (SC) spoke directly to the troops, urging them to know that they had support back home. He argued that the surge was working and that the U.S. was indeed winning in Iraq.

Amy Klobuchar (MN) followed with an address focused much moreso on the economy than on Iraq policy.

I'm not going to say that the Republicans "tricked" the Democrats into an extended vote on Iraq but I am scratching my head as to why the Democrats wanted to bring on 30 hours of Iraq-related debate only to talk about economic issues. I'm really thinking that the Democrats aren't quite sure where they want to take the Senate ship.

Afternoon cloture vote on foreclosure rescue plan

[13:46]
The Senate is currently on lunch recess. This afternoon, though, senators will be voting for cloture on a motion to proceed to legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to lower the amount of principal homeowners owe on their mortgages. That is, the judges could reduce the principal that borrowers owe to their banks. Lenders are not in support of the legislation. NPR reported that Republicans also generally oppose the legislation. Democrats will need to round up 60 total votes for a successful cloture motion. Consider that Barack Obama (IL), Hillary Clinton (NY), Christopher Dodd (CT), and Joe Lieberman (CT) were no votes on Indian health care this morning. Unless some of those Dems return to the capitol this afternoon, forget about 60 votes for anything.

Warner back in the hospital

[13:51]
John Warner (VA) was admitted to the hospital today for observation following an irregular heartbeat. He spent time in the hospital in October 2007 with the same condition. He was a no-vote this morning. It is unclear when he will return to the Senate.

Indian Health Care Act passes the Senate, 83-10.

There were seven no votes. The legislation extends the laws governing health care for Native Americans, and includes some improvements. The ten no votes were: Allard (CO),
Coburn (OK), Corker (TN), DeMint (SC), Graham (SC), Gregg (NH), Inhofe (OK), Sessions (AL), Sununu (NH), and Vitter (LA). These are fiscal conservatives, some with Indian country in their states. Of course, as I heard in debate about the bill, many Native Americans are today living in urban areas.

Monday, Feb. 25, 2008: Cloture vote success paves way for passage of Indian health care bill

Senate aims to finish Indian health care bill tomorrow

The Senate has adjourned for the day. It will convene at 10:00 tomorrow to resume consideration of S. 1200, the Indian health care bill.

CSPAN2 unveils new camera angle for Senate coverage

[18:52]
As senators Jack Reed (RI) and Ron Wyden (OR) engaged in a health care colloquy, C-SPAN2 broke out a new camera angle to cover the exchange. Viewers looked down on the senators from the Senate gallery, almost from behind. It was sort of a bird's eye view. This is the only camera angle I can recall that did not portray the coverage of senators as thought the viewer sat at the front of the chamber. The quorum call vantage point, of course, is set at the rear of the room.

Cloture vote on Indian health care improvements act

[17:51]
Senators are wrapping up a vote for cloture on the Indian health care legislation they have been working on since the beginning of the year. This cloture vote will succeed, cutting off further debate and clearing the way for passage of the bill.

There might be a vote or two on amendments post-cloture. Otherwise, senators should be able to pass this bill tonight or tomorrow.

Vote result and notes:

• Cloture motion agreed to, 84-2.

• DeMint voted against cloture. He was hoping to get a vote on his Semper Fi Act (see below). This amendment was just knocked down post-cloture because Dorgan made a point of order that it was not germane. That point of order was sustained, the amendment dies.

DeMint attempts to get Berkeley, CA funds rescinded

[17:44]
There is an ongoing flap surrounding actions taking by the city council of the city of Berkeley, CA and a marine recruiting station in that city.

Code Pink, an activist organization, had been protesting the Iraq War among other things outside this Marine Corps recruiting station in Berkeley. In apparent support of this protest, the city council voted to give Code Pink a free parking spot in front of the recruiting station and it voted to issue Code Pink protesters a permit to use a megaphone as part of their protest at the station.

Senator Jim DeMint (SC) said that the purpose of the megaphone is so that Code Pink members can "shout down" any potential recruit at the Marine Corps recruiting station. In response the actions of the Berkeley city council DeMint has been attempting to get a vote on language that would rescind FY 2008 federal funds targeted for the city of Berkeley. He calls his bill the Semper Fi act.

He spoke on the floor this afternoon to say that he has not gotten the chance to introduce the legislation as an amendment on several bills that have come through the Senate recently, including the current Indian Health Care Act.

I did hear Barbara Boxer (CA) speak in opposition to DeMint's legislation earlier this month.

DeMint says right up front that he respects the Code Pink protest, referring to the First Amendment right to protest things like the Iraq war. But it goes beyond the First Amendment when the city council grants strategically free parking spaces and grants permits for megaphone usage. He says that at that point the First Amendment right of the Marines to recruit in Berkeley is being infringed.

Precap:

The Senate will convene at 15:00 and immediately proceed to the reading of Washington's farewell address. Mark Pryor (AR) has the honor.

Following the reading, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

At 17:30, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to the bill.

Senate takes a quasi-recess for President's Day: Bradbury Nomination and FISA legislation will wait

Senators will not be on the floor this week. The Senate is taking the week off for a President's Day recess. It won't be a "recess" in the technical sense, however, because Senate Democrats will continue their efforts to block a Bush recess appointment by holding pro forma sessions throughout the period of recess.

The Senate met for a pro forma session on Friday and will do so again on Tuesday the 19th.

The Bradbury Nomination

[16:08]
Senate Democrats are ardent in their opposition to Steven Bradbury, President Bush's nominee for head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Justice Department. Dick Durbin (IL) among others has been outspoken in opposing Bradbury, who refused to repudiate harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding. Durbin has suggested that Bradbury, as an employee at the OLC, has signed off on legal opinions authorizing harsh interrogation techniques. The opinions that OLC issues are binding on the White House.

Bradbury himself has been acting head of the OLC since 2005, when he replaced the retiring head of the Office. It was at this same time that Bush sent his nomination to the Senate.

I have not written much about Mr. Bradbury on this site, but Durbin has been visible from time-to-time on the floor chronicling the fight over Bradbury's nomination. Durbin said that numerous other nominations were being held up because the President has issued a "Bradbury or nobody" ultimatum.

The Latest on FISA

[16:09]
The fight over an update of FISA provisions governing electronic surveillance and wiretapping will continue well into this next week. I will attempt a brief recap.

In August of 2007, Congress passed new FISA provisions governing how the U.S. gov't can go about collecting intelligence by means of wiretap and electronic surveillance. This legislation became necessary in light of the Bush administration's insitution of what appears to have been an illegal "terrorist surveillance program" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The 2007 Protect America Act was merely an addition to existing FISA law, the bulk of which was introduced as law in 1978. The Protect America Act carried a six-month sunset provision, meaning it was due to expire on Jan. 31, 2008.

The Protect America Act of 2007 is flawed. No one seems to disagree with that. However, Congress as a whole has not been able to pass a replacement. The House passed its Restore Act late last year. The Senate attempted to pass a replacement last December but it was blocked by Chris Dodd (CT) among others, who objected to a provision in the Senate version of the bill providing retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies complicit in the government's apparently illegal warrantless spying program spanning 2001-2006. The House's version of the bill does not include such immunity.

Flash forward to this January. The Senate was still moving slow on its version of the bill. So Congress passed a 15-day extension of the Protect America Act of 2007, setting a new expiration date of Feb. 16th, 2008.

Jay Rockefeller (WV), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, along with vice-chair Kit Bond (MO) rushed to beat this Feb. 16th deadline. They led a defeat of a rival Judiciary Committee bill that would have stripped immunity from the new FISA legislation. They further beat back several civil libertarian-minded amendments offered by Dodd and Russ Feingold (WI) that would have placed further checks and balances — or if you like, "burdens" — on the collection of intelligence under the new legislation. A Dodd amendment attempting once again to strip immunity from the Senate package couldn't get 50 votes.

The Senate passed its bill with several days to spare before the Feb. 16 deadline. President Bush wanted the House to hold a vote on the Senate-passed bill. Senate majority leader Harry Reid (NV) wanted to pass another extension of Protect America, either 15- or 30-days' worth, to allow Senate and House leaders to conference on the legislation or work out some other agreement. The House held a vote on a 21-day extension of the current law, but it was defeated by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

House leadership, namely Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, held strong and refused to hold a direct vote on the Senate-passed bill. President Bush threatened to delay his trip to Africa. The intelligence community warned about a FISA gap. Hoyer said, "Why doesn't the Senate vote on our bill?" On Thursday the 14th, the House recessed for President's Day/Week.

Hoyer and others spoke on Friday the 15th to assure the public that the intelligence community wouldn't really be all that affected by the expiration on Saturday of Protect America. It seems that any targets already being bugged by the gov't can be surveilled for another year under the Protect America rules. The gov't can still use the rest of FISA — which hasn't expired — to go to court and get a warrant for new surveillance. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell agreed that this was true but characterized the process of getting a warrant as "burdensome." The Protect America Act allows the gov't to conduct certain types of surveillance without getting a warrant.

More interesting perhaps was McConnell's statement on Friday that the most important piece of the new FISA legislation — i.e. the Senate version — was indeed the retroactive immunity for telecoms. He said that the private companies play a pivotal role in the surveillance and that they need assurances that they aren't going to be sued. Bush has also said this.

Opponents of immunity warn that insulating the telecoms from the 40 or so lawsuits stemming from the 2001-06 warrantless surveillance will prevent the public from knowing the true extent of the program. Dodd has argued that the request for immunity by the White House is about "secrecy and power."

February 14, 2008: House standing tall on FISA and separation of powers

Senate will finish Indian health care legislation on Tuesday

[18:50]
It's possible that there won't be any Senate session tomorrow. There will be some votes on Indian health care on Monday and then again on Tuesday.

The exciting action on the floor today concerned what will happen with FISA — both current FISA law, portions of which will expire Friday at midnight. And the new legislation, which the Senate passed last week but which the House would rather not take up. The House leaders would rather hold a conference to hash out the final version of the bill, a very common practice.

Lot of accusations flying about on the floor today. Publicity stunts going both ways. American people endangered, fearmongering etc.

House threatens adjournment and findings of contempt

[13:19]
The House is right now voting on a motion to adjourn. Congress is scheduled to break next week for the Presidents' Day recess. This adjournment vote will probably fail, but Democrats in the House have refused so far to vote on the Senate-passed version of new FISA legislation. President Bush spoke outside the White House today to ask the House to vote on the Senate-passed legislation. Current FISA law expires Friday at midnight. Bush is planning an Africa trip but he says he will delay his trip if need be.

Recall that the House version of new FISA legislation doesn't include retroactive immunity for telecoms. The Senate added such a provision. Leaders in the House would rather work out differences between the bills in conference than vote on the Senate legislation. It seems that the Senate legislation would pass the House, pulling support from Republicans and "blue dog" Democrats. These blue dogs are fiscally conservative but also moderate on national security issues. This Republican/Blue Dog bloc voted down a 21-day extension of current FISA law yesterday.

Also in the House, Democratic representatives are pushing for an issuance of contempt citations to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton and former White House counsel and one-time Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers. This relates back to the claim of executive privilege by these individuals during the U.S. attorney scandal din. It's no coincidence that the House is playing this card with FISA in the background.

John Cornyn (TX) took to the Senate floor to express his incredulity at the possibility that the House would adjourn without voting on the Senate version of FISA.

Meanwhile, the Senate is still considering Indian health care legislation. Byron Dorgan (ND) said moments ago that work on the floor was suspended until one senator returned from a speaking engagement across town. Dorgan couldn't believe that the whole bill was being held up by one senator's schedule. I'm not sure who that senator is. Most likely a Republican from a state with reservations, perhaps Jon Kyl (AZ).

Work on Senate floor will turn to Indian health care legislation

[9:52]
The pending business of the Senate is an update of legislation governing Indian health care.

Watchdog group hails six senators who eschewed pork

[9:47]
Taxpayers for Common Sense awarded a gold star to six senators who didn't sign up their states for pork-barrel projects last year. In no certain order these senators are:

• John McCain (AZ)
• Russ Feingold (WI)
• Tom Coburn (OK)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Jim DeMint (SC)
• Jay Rockefeller (WV)

Among the biggest porkers were:

• Ted Stevens (AK)
• Robert Byrd (WV)
• Thad Cochran (MS)
• Daniel Inouye (HI)

Sessions assails Congressional budget process, calls for a 2-year budget

[9:46]
In a morning order speech, Jeff Sessions (AL) remarks that only three times since 1980 has Congress managed to pass all of its appropriations bills on time (i.e. by the beginning of the new federal fiscal year in October). In light of this, he is asking his colleagues to pass a two-year budget this time around. Not a bad idea.

Effort in House to extend current FISA law for 21 days failed

[9:44]
I know that this sight is called "Today in the Senate." But here's some info about yesterday in the House. An effort by Democratic leaders to pass a 21-day extension of the current FISA wiretap provisions failed by a vote of 191 to 229. Republicans, joined by so-called blue dog Democrats, defeated the proposed extension. Harry Reid (NV) has been trying to get a 15-day extension passed in the Senate.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008: Bush says he won't sign another FISA extension; He also threatens intelligence veto

Senators turn to Indian health care legislation

[17:59]
A Tester amendment aimed at cutting down on methamphetamine use on reservations passed. Bernie Sanders (VT) offered an arguably unrelated amendment adding funds for the low-income heating assistance program. Senators tried to get funds for this program — called Laheap (sp?) — into the economic stimulus but couldn't do so. Well, it's back.

Senators narrowly pass FY 2008 Intelligence conference report; Bush threatens a veto

[16:51]
Senators have just narrowly passed, by a vote of 51 to 45, the FY 2008 Intelligence authorization conference report. This conference report is the "final" version of the bill, as agreed to by representatives of the Senate and the House.

Republicans were voting against the report because it contained a provision requiring members of the CIA to adhere to the Army field manual when interrogating suspects. The Army field manual bans waterboarding. Yet, here was John McCain (AZ) joining Republicans in an effort to bring the report down.

It is rare that senators vote down a conference report. Normally the report represents legislation that a majority of senators have already voted to support.

I do not believe that Obama or Clinton participated in this extremely close vote.

Bush says that he will veto this legislation, voicing objections to the prohibitions of certain tactics by CIA interrogators.

Question about FISA extension

[15:29]
There was a question about the status of a second FISA extension. The short answer is that the second extension has not been passed by either the Senate or the House. The House is right now voting on a 21-day extension of the current FISA law. On the Senate calendar is a 15-day extension.

Now for the long answer. The current FISA legislation includes the electronic surveillance provisions known as the Protect America Act of 2007, passed in August. That Act included a 6-month sunset provision. Thus, it would have expired on Feb. 1 had Congress not passed a 15-day extension in January. The Protect America Act of 2007 is now set to expire on Saturday, Feb. 16.

The FISA update that the Senate passed yesterday would replace the FISA provisions of the Protect America Act. Of course, the Senate-passed FISA update must now be reconciled with the House-passed version. That could take several days, potentially leaving a "FISA gap" under which there is no law allowing the government to engage in certain types of surveillance.

President Bush has said he does not want another short-term extension. Democratic leaders in the Congress have said that they need the extension because it's going to take awhile for the Senate and the House to agree on a final version of the FISA update.

Today's work on intelligence authorization conference report has torture import

[9:40]

Later this morning, the Senate will vote on the conference report to accompany H.R.2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act. This legislation authorizes but does not fund intelligence-related programs. It is not related to the FISA legislation that the Senate passed yesterday. The conference report represents the agreement reached by conferees from the Senate and from the House.

The FY 2008 intelligence authorization import requires that CIA interrogators adhere and limit themselves to interrogation techniques prescribed by the U.S. Army field manual. Dianne Feinstein (CA) is on the floor talking about how today is about deciding whether or not we "want to go to the dark side." This is a reference to the Dick Cheney quote where he said that in order to win the war on terror the U.S. would indeed have to go to the dark side. Not so fast, Darth.

As House and Senate conference on FISA update, current law set to expire Saturday

[9:37]
President Bush said this morning that he would not sign another short-term extension of current FISA law. The Senate yesterday passed FISA legislation to replace some parts of the current FISA law. But the Senate version of the bill, which includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies, must be reconciled with the House version of the bill, which does include such a provision.

Harry Reid (NV) says that this is a continuation of the Republican strategy to force the House into conceding to the immunity provision at the last minute. Mitch McConnell (KY) says that there is a bipartisan majority in the House, including blue dog Democrats, that are willing to pass a bill including immunity. So there is no need for another short-term FISA extension.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008: Senate passes a FISA update that includes lawsuit protection for telecom companies

Senate passes FISA bill easily

[19:22]
The bill passed the Senate easily, 68 to 29. There never was any filibuster. None of the amendments that senators voted on, this week or last week, passed. Retroactive immunity remains in the bill. Recall that the House version did not include telecom immunity. But if I had to guess, I would guess that the conference report ultimately will include the immunity provision.

Cantwell joins chorus suddenly pointing out flaws in FISA update

[15:18]
Maria Cantwell (WA) is speaking in opposition to the FISA bill pending before the Senate. I am wondering where she was when these amendments were being debated, when it was basically just Dodd, Feingold, and Whitehouse out on the floor speaking in defense of Americans' civil liberties. Barbara Boxer, too. Post-cloture is not the time to start debate.

Dodd speaking against passage of the bill

[14:55]
Right now Chris Dodd is saying that the FISA bill on which senators just invoked cloture is flawed. Barbara Boxer (CA) spoke earlier and announced a similar sentiment.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether Dodd & Co. will attempt some sort of filibuster of the bill's final passage. I am not sure whether such a filibuster is possible. It does seem possible that Dodd et al. could force the Senate to use up all of the available post-cloture time for debate. Keeping in mind that the pertinent versions of FISA expire on Friday, and that the Senate version must still be passed and reconciled with the House version, it is possible that even a short delay could wreak havoc.

Dodd said something about 30 hours of post-cloture debate. He is also holding out hope that the House will not cave to the Senate in conference.

Retroactive immunity set to become part of Senate's version of FISA update

[12:26]
The House-passed version of a FISA update did not include retroactive immunity. Certain parts of current FISA law expire Saturday. This leaves the House and Senate only a few days to conference and agree a final version of the bill. Will retroactive immunity survive the conference? Can Dodd still muster a filibuster of the Senate bill?

Recess until 14:15.

Cloture vote on update of FISA legislation is a success

[12:17]
OK. Not a single FISA amendment has passed by a roll call vote. Now the FISA bill itself faces a cloture vote.

60 votes needed:

• Democratic ayes: Baucus, Carper, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson (FL), Salazar, Nelson (NE), Lieberman, Bayh
• Republican nays:

Notes:

• Cloture will be invoked, limiting further debate on the bill.

• Obama votes no.

Result:

• Cloture is agreed to, 69 to 29.

Feinstein amendment asking for courts to examine whether telecoms reasonably complied with gov't request to spy will fall

[11:58]
This amendment, No. 3919, asks the FISA court to consider whether the telecom companies acted in good faith when they complied with gov't requests to sequester the communications of Americans after September 11th, 2001. If these companies acted in bad faith, they would remain liable to lawsuit. If the company acted with a reasonable belief that it was acting lawfully, it would be immune from prosecution.

60 votes needed:

• Republican ayes: Specter
• Democratic nays: Dodd, Dorgan, Inouye, Johnson, Lieberman, Nelson (NE), Pryor,

Notes:

• This won't pass.

• Obama votes yes, McCain votes no. Clinton is a no-show.

Result:

• Amendment falls, 41 to 57.

Now a Specter/Whitehouse amendment affecting retroactive immunity will fail

[11:45]
The amendment substitutes the U.S. government in the place of the telecom companies in lawsuits stemming from the government's illegal wiretapping program.

51 votes needed:

• Republican ayes: Specter
• Democratic nays: Bayh, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Klobuchar, Pryor, Nelson, Tester, Salazar, Murray, Landrieu, Lincoln, Baucus, Dodd, Biden, Lieberman

Notes:

• This is not going to pass either. These votes aren't even close. Dodd apparently isn't willing to go for this approach to immunity.

• Who knows how Clinton would have voted on these. She hasn't shown up today. Obama has voted yes on this vote (and yes all morning). McCain the opposite.

Result:

• This falls 30 to 68.

After three failed FISA amendments, Feingold's "bulk collection" prohibition will be fourth to fall today

[11:18]
Nine Republicans joined Democrats in the first vote of the day but since then Republicans and Democrats have been unwilling to support Feingold and Dodd amendments, one introducing more safeguards and one stripping telecom immunity from the bill. Hillary Clinton (NY) is a no-show. Now a Feingold amendment banning "bulk collection" of communications. Rockefeller opposes this amendment, saying that the bill already takes into account the safeguards Feingold is seeking. Bond says that the only American being listened to under the FISA update is one calling or being called by a terrorist.

51 votes needed:

• Republican ayes:
• Democratic nays: Carper, Johnson, Mikulski, both Nelsons, Landrieu, Lincoln, Inouye, Webb, Pryor, Lieberman

Notes:

• This won't pass either.

• Obama votes aye. He has supported every amendment so far this morning. Clinton hasn't shown up yet.

• Lieberman has voted with Republicans this morning.

Result:

The Dodd amendment stripping retroactive immunity from the bill falls well short of 50 votes

[11:00]
Let the courts determine the legality (or illegality) of this program, says Chris Dodd (CT). Bond rises to say that immunity is an "essential part of this bill." The discovery process will lead to disclosure of our sources and means of collection, he says. Our private sector partners would also be discouraged to cooperate with us in the future. Rockefeller "strongly oppose(s)" this amendment, No. 3907.

50 votes needed:

• Republican ayes:
• Democratic nays: Bayh, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, McCaskill, Rockefeller, Stabenow, Salazar, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, Lieberman, Lincoln

Notes:

• Clinton has missed the first two (going on three) votes of the morning.

• This is not even close. It remains to be seen whether the bailing Democrats will support two other amendments altering the bill's retroactive immunity provisions.

• Obama votes "aye".

Result:

• Big loss, 31 to 67.

A Feingold "safeguards" amendment falls well short of 50 votes

[10:42]
Rockefeller opposes this Feingold amendment, No. 3979. It seeks to provide additional safeguards on communications involving persons in the U.S. Barack Obama is among nine co-sponsors.

The amendment needs 51 votes to pass:

• Republican ayes:
• Democratic nays: Feinstein, Landrieu, Levin, Pryor, Rockefeller, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson (FL), Lieberman, Carper, Salazar

Notes:

• This thing is not passing. Feingold has lost eleven Democrats already and isn't picking up any of the nine Republicans that were willing to support the Feinstein amendment.

• McCain votes no. Obama votes yes. Clinton has not yet appeared today.

• Salazar changes his vote from "no" to "aye."

Result:

This amendment falls big time, 35 to 59.

Feinstein's "exclusivity" amendment falls, despite getting nine Republican votes

[10:15]
This Dianne Feinstein amendment, No. 3910, specifies that FISA is the sole means by which the government can conduct surveillance electronically. Feinstein wants such a provision in the bill in response to the Bush Administration's decision to go outside the realm of FISA when it introduced its warrantless surveillance program earlier this decade. Feinstein seeks to make clear that Congress has spoken on the matter, thus diminishing the president's power in the same arena. Bond opposes the amendment but Intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller urged its passage.

60 votes needed for passage:

• Republican ayes: Smith (OR), Hagel (NE), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Sununu (NH), Voinovich (OH), Specter (PA), Craig (ID) (need two more)
• Democratic nays: Lieberman (CT), Nelson (NE)

Notes:

• Barack Obama (IL) is on the floor. He has just voted "aye." He is talking in the well with McCaskill (MO) and Rockefeller (WV). Then he talks with who I think was Barbara Boxer (CA). He left after shaking hands with some of the clerks.

• Pryor (AR) has just [10:35] changed his vote from a "nay" to an "aye".

• John McCain (AZ) has voted no.

• Hillary Clinton (NY) did not vote.

• It is remarkable to see so many Republicans joining the support for this amendment. The Republicans voting "aye" are some who also joined Democrats in opposing portions of the PATRIOT ACT reauthorization (Specter, Sununu, and Murkowski). The Craig vote was surprising.

The result: Amendment falls 57 t0 41, despite getting nine Republican votes. Losing Pryor and Lieberman cost the Democrats, not to mention the Clinton absence.

Whitehouse amendment on minimization procedures passes by a voice vote

[10:13]
Overnight, Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) modified his amendment stressing minimization procedures in the course of intelligence collection. The modification brought with it the support of Intelligence Committee vice-chairman Kit Bond (MO) as well as FBI director Robert Mueller. The amendment, which had faced a 60-vote threshold, passed by a voice vote.

Votes begin at 10:00

[8:50]
The Senate convenes at 10:00 and launches directly into a series of votes on FISA amendments, eight before it's all said and done. Three amendments must meet 60 vote thresholds, but the amendments either stripping or watering down the retroactive immunity in the legislation need get only 51 votes to pass. What I'm wondering now is whether the presidential candidates will be present today. After all, it is the Potomac Primary or Chesapeake Tuesday. In other words, they're not far away. Some of the votes today will be very close.

Chris Dodd (CT) spoke for two and a half hours at the end of yesterday's session. He was not real optimistic about the vote for his amendment stripping immunity from the bill. Instead, he asked 39 other senators to join with him and Russ Feingold in opposing cloture on the bill itself. A cloture vote on the bill could occur today. If so, it would occur after all of the votes on amendments are complete.

Monday, February 11, 2008: A full day and night of FISA debate, but no votes

Senate adjourns; FISA votes tomorrow at 10:00

[22:09]
Dodd sounded doubtful that any of the retroactive immunity amendments would pass. He thus urged senators to join him in opposing cloture on the bill. The retroactive immunity amendments need 51 votes to pass. Opposing cloture takes only 41 senators. We will see!

Dodd speaks for 2 1/2 hours on retroactive immunity

[20:48]
Chris Dodd (CT) has now been speaking for awhile about the retroactive immunity provision that is, for the time being, a part of the FISA legislation in front of Senate. Recall that the House did not include such a provision in its version of the new FISA provisions.

Dodd makes a principled argument. He points to a pattern of abuse by the Bush Administration. He urges his colleagues to stand up to an overreach by the Executive. Like Specter, Dodd is willing to say, "Hey, maybe this program was legal. I don't think it was but let's say it was. But we need to let a court say so."

He also believes that the full extent of the program has not come to light. He cites one whistleblower who indicated that for a period of years after 9/11 every single domestic communication — text, email, fax, browsing records — was seized, copied, and stored by the government (NSA) and the telecom companies. Note. This seizure grabbed any and all communications by U.S. citizens, even if these communications had no foreign component. If this were proved, I believe the public would be aghast. The whistleblower who helped bring the program to light referred to the surveillance as "vacuum cleaner surveillance."

Dodd has been speaking for over an hour. Perhaps this is a preview of his filibuster presentation. He says that if his amendment stripping immunity from the bill does not pass, that senators should vote against cloture so that senators can return to the judiciary committee's version of the bill. A cloture vote would apparently follow the eight amendment votes.

He also points out that FISA was passed in 1978, on the heels of the Church Commission's report. That report detailed spying by the U.S. Army, FBI, and CIA on American citizens, including the compilation of dossiers of innocent Americans. Dodd is saying, "Look, FISA was erected for a reason. The Congress that passed it saw the government do horrible things. Will we now undo the work of our predecessors? Do we think our time is so much different, that we will breach the privacy rights of our citizens in the name of governmental power and secrecy?"

UPDATE: It is now 21:49 and Dodd is still going. I can only figure that he is required to burn a certain amount of time before his amendment is ripe for a vote. I believe he has been talking for over two hours straight.

UPDATE: At 22:04, Dodd asks for 40 other senators to join him in defeating cloture on the bill should all of the amendments trying to bring down retroactive immunity fail. He has been speaking for two hours and 25 minutes.

Specter speaks about his "substitute the defendant" amendment

[19:37
Under the Specter/Whitehouse amendment regarding retroactive immunity for telecoms, the government would take the place of the telecom companies in the forty or so pending lawsuits. Specter says that the government could only avail itself of any defenses that are currently available to the telecoms. Thus, the government could not escape liability by claiming governmental immunity. It could, however, claim that the doctrine of "state's secrets" prevent certain information from coming to light in the trial; that defense is also available to the telecoms.

Specter says, "Hey, the program might have been legal." (He doubts it.) "The program might have been legal, but that's up for the courts to decide." He notes that President Bush has claimed that he as President was authorized to ignore the laws of Congress because the President's own Article II constitutional powers supersede any statute.

Well, I just looked at Article II and I don't know what clause or paragraph Bush is relying on with this Article II argument. It's bupkus. The strongest clause is "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army...." Where he gets any notion that he, as commander in chief, can suddenly disregard the laws that the people have passed I don't know.

Eight FISA votes tomorrow, straight away

[18:59]
There won't be any morning business tomorrow. Eight FISA votes will begin at 10:00. Three of those votes will be subject to 60-vote thresholds: a Whitehouse amendment on minimization procedures, a Feinstein amendment on subjecting telecoms to a question of "good faith" compliance regarding their participation in the warrantless surveillance, and amendment No. 3919, another Feinstein amendment providing for the review of FISA certifications by the FISA court.

More Quorum Call

[18:32]
Lots of quorum call this evening. The big votes come tomorrow. Today had some decent FISA debate but really it was sort of a non-day on the floor.

Senate is in a quorum call

[17:27]
Earlier Chris Dodd (CT) seemed to endorse the Specter/Whitehouse amendment substituting the gov't for the telecom companies in the lawsuits stemming from the government's warrantless wiretapping program. Presumably then, if Dodd is still willing to stage a filibuster, he would hold off as long as his amendment stripping immunity from the bill altogether OR the Specter/Whitehouse amendment passed.

Feinstein discusses her "test of good faith" amendment

[15:32]
As an alternative to stripping immunity from the bill; and as an alternative to substituting the U.S. as defendant in telecom lawsuits, Feinstein offers an amendment such that only telecom companies which complied with the government's illegal surveillance in "bad faith" would be subject to lawsuits. These cases would be heard by the FISA courts themselves.

She says that FISA does already contain a provision speaking to the situation in which the gov't asks a private individual or company to do something that might be illegal. She argues that if a telecom reasonably believed that it was not breaking the law, it should not be subjected to litigation as a result of helping the gov't spy on Americans. The company would have to prove "an objectively reasonable good faith belief" that it was not breaking the law. The determination would be up to the FISA courts, which by the way, are composed of 40 federal judges appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Hatch follows Feinstein to say that this amendment has problems. First, this standard of "good faith belief" is not defined in the amendment. So what does it mean? he asks. Who decides what it means? Second, he says that the FISA courts are not trial courts. They've never held a trial, he says. The FISA courts are not equipped to handle these cases. (Of course, all of the FISA judges are federal judges, well-versed with holding a trial-like case.)

Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) later [15:56] speaks in support of the amendment, though he notes that the "good faith" standard is the lowest possible standard. "We are not even requiring," he says, "that the companies have complied with the law." Only, he says, that they thought they were.

This amendment needs to get 60 votes tomorrow to pass. Feinstein seemed to indicate that the other two immunity amendments need only a simple majority (51) to pass. That is surprising because so far all of the FISA amendments have needed to get 60 votes to survive. Maybe there aren't 51 votes for stripping immunity from the bill.

Feinstein discusses her "exclusivity" amendment

[15:26]
First, Dianne Feinstein (CA) offers an amendment making crystal clear that from here on out FISA, i.e. the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, is the sole means by which the gov't can conduct electronic surveillance. The import of this amendment is its preemptive ability to prevent any President from claiming that he is, in Feinstein's words, "above the law."

Feinstein pointed to the important steel seizure case in which Justice Jackson put forth the "three zones of presidential power" doctrine which is generally accepted as correct still today, 50 years after President Truman tried to crush a steel strike by claiming that he had the inherent power as commander in chief to crush the strike given that the country was in war (in Korea) and that the steel mills needed to make weapons etc.

Jackson surmised that presidential power was at its lowest when the President acted in contravention to the laws passed by Congress. In this case, Congress (i.e. the people) passed FISA in 1978 in response to the horrendous revelations of gov't surveillance unearthed in the Church Report. Feinstein is arguing that when Congress passed FISA it prevented the President from claiming greater power to "self-legislate" in the same area. Yet, President Bush has argued that he has Article II (i.e. vague constitutional powers) that allowed him to go around FISA and listen to Americans without a warrant. This Feinstein amendment makes explicit that FISA is the only way to do electronic surveillance in the U.S.

Feinstein named a bipartisan group of co-sponsors on this bill including Specter, Hagel, and Snowe.

Kyl gives three reasons why immunity should be included in FISA

[15:19]
Jon Kyl (AZ) said that the provision of the pending FISA legislation granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies helping the gov't with its warrantless wiretapping should remain in the bill. Specifically, Kyl was arguing against a Specter /Whitehouse amendment that would substitute the gov't for the telecoms in the lawsuits stemming from the program.

First, Kyl said that if the lawsuits proceed, even with the gov't as defendant, the names of the telecoms that cooperated will become known. This seems sort of weak because it is already known publicly that AT&T cooperated while Qwest Communications refused to cooperate absent a court order.

Second, said Kyl, the employees of these companies will be subject to the "rigors of litigation," for instance depositions and interrogatories. He did not say why this would be detrimental but presumably he meant that the employees would spend all of their time on lawsuit-related activities rather than their regular work. To that I say. Well, how much time, money, and hardware did AT&T spend on the warrantless surveillance?

Third, Kyl said that the gov't didn't want to disclose its "sources and methods." That if the lawsuits go ahead, terrorists will learn what not to do in the future. Maybe this point has merit but it does seem like the terrorists would already be pretty cautious and already know that the U.S. is tried to intercept their communications.

Hatch, Feinstein add to the Lantos Tribute

[14:27]
Orrin Hatch (UT) is paying tribute to his friend, California Congressman Tom Lantos, who died today. Lantos had recently chaired the House's Foreign Relations committee.

Dianne Feinstein (CA) now joins in the tribute. She says Lantos represented the district directly south of San Francisco.

The Senate is getting underway

[14:01]
Harry Reid (NV) says that votes on FISA amendments will begin tomorrow at 10:00. All of the debate on the amendments will occur today. Reid is now remembering Congressman Tom Lantos, of California, who died today from cancer of the esophagus. Lantos was a Holocaust survivor, having twice escaped from concentration camps in Hungary.

Precap:

At 14:00, the Senate will convene and resume consideration of S.2248, the FISA Amendments Act. Recall that the pending FISA legislation revises certain aspects of the law, most importantly governing the way our government conducts electronic surveillance and wiretapping. The revisions replace the Protect America Act of 2007, which the Congress made law in August 2007. At the time, legislators put a 6-month sunset on the Protect America Act because they weren't sure they had gotten it right. With progress slow on revision, Congress added another 15 days to the Protect America Act in late January. It is now set to expire on Feb. 16, i.e. Friday.

Senators will speak about various amendments to the Intelligence Committee's draft of new FISA legislation. Most importantly, senators have yet to vote on a Feingold/Dodd amendment that would remove from the bill a provision offering retroactive immunity to telecom companies that aided that gov't in illegal, warrantless snooping from 2001 to 2006. A vote on this subject could come tomorrow. Alternatively, a Specter/Whitehouse amendment would retain the immunity provision but it would also substitute the U.S. gov't as defendant in the 40 or so lawsuits pending against telecom companies. In this manner, courts would still be allowed to examine the post-9/11 program to determine if it truly was illegal and why. The full extent of the program would also come to light.

The Week in (P)review

Senators finished work on their version of an economic stimulus package. Senate Democrats had wanted to add to the House-passed package an array of benefits including money for the extension of unemployment benefits, an extension of expiring tax credits for alternative energy investment, and provisions aimed at the ailing housing industry. This Democratic package fell just one vote short of the necessary 60 for cloture. Both sides agreed the following day to a package adding checks for seniors and military disabled vets to the House package. The Senate version also closed a loophole that might have allowed illegal immigrants to get checks. The dollar amount of checks holds true to the orignal House proposal: $600 for a taxpayer with $3,000 of earned income in 2007. $1200 for couples. $300 for each kid.

Senators also worked on revising FISA, the foreign intelligence surveillance act. The pending legislation fixes provisions of FISA pertaining to electronic surveillance and wiretapping. Amendments from Ben Cardin (MD) and Russell Feingold (WI) sought to reign in the grants of power made to the executive branch in the proposed legislation. These amendments came nowhere near the 60 votes they needed for passage. Three FISA amendments garnered zero Republican votes.

Next week begins with more work on FISA. The portions of FISA that the pending legislation revises are set to expire on Saturday Feb. 16. Reid already extended the current legislation once. He has filed legislation to extend the provisions once again for 15 days. This could be necessary in the event that work on FISA this week runs into a filibuster. It is also possible that the extension will be necessary due to a delay of the legislation in conference. The House has already passed its version of the legislation. In contrast to the pending Senate bill, the House did not include retroactive immunity for telecom companies who helped the gov't carry out the warrantless surveillance between 2001-2006.

Roll call votes on FISA amendments begin Tuesday. Among the amendments is the Dodd/Feingold attempt to rip retroactive immunity out of the Senate bill. Dodd has vowed to filibuster the bill if it contains retroactive immunity. At this stage in the game, his filibuster would probably have to take the form of a talk-o-rama. Two weeks ago he said he as willing to "talk awhile about the rule of law." We'll see.

Other amendments for Tuesday vote include a Specter/Whitehouse amendment leaving retroactive immunity in the bill but substituting the federal gov't for the telecom companies as defendant in the some-odd 40 pending lawsuits. Specter emphasized the need to figure out if the President's program really did violate the Constitution. Or more specifically to test the President's claim that Article II of the Constitution gave him the power to ignore the statutes passed by Congress. By agreement, an amendment must get 60 votes to pass.

Friday, February 8, 2008: Senate was in session this morning but no votes

The Senate was in session this morning but because I knew that there weren't going to be any votes, I hardly paid attention. I had it on on mute for awhile. Kit Bond (MO) came to talk about FISA. He said that there would be debate about FISA amendments today and Monday. Votes on Tuesday. There really wasn't any FISA debate today.

Sherrod Brown (OH) talked at one point. Bill Nelson (FL) was out there later. The Senate adjourned at 13:05.

See you at 14:00 on Monday.

Thursday, February 7, 2008: Senate amends House stimulus package, passes it, sends it back; FISA votes later tonight

Senate done with roll calls today; FISA waits until Tueday

[18:17]
There won't be any more roll call votes today. There won't be any votes tomorrow either. Reid suggested that the Senate would finish FISA on Tuesday. We'll see. They still need to debate and vote on the retroactive immunity amendments. That's going to take some time.

Feingold's 'reverse targeting' also falls well short of 60 votes

[17:54]
Feingold says that FISA pretends to outlaw reverse targeting but that it does not actually do so. Reverse targeting is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, contends Feingold. It is the attempt to listen in on a target by listening in on someone with whom you suspect your target will communicate. FISA does not effectively prohibit this tactic, he says.

Rockefeller (WV) says that the restriction would prevent the gov't from wiretapping a foreign city that the U.S. is getting ready to invade.

60 votes needed.

Here they are so far:

Republican yeas:
Democratic nays: Feinstein, Johnson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Rockefeller, Salazar, Pryor

This isn't going to pass. 38 to 57 it falls. The Amendment is not agree to.

This will be the last vote today. There will be no votes tomorrow. Reid suggests that the Senate could finish its work on FISA on Tuesday.

Feingold 'use limit' amendment falls

[17:10]
This amendment to FISA makes clear that a FISA court has the option not to admit evidence gathered by the U.S. gov't in a case against an American where the evidence was gathered illegally. However, the amendment says that information can always be used against non-citizens, even if gathered unlawfully; and, if the information pertains to terrorism it can also always be used.

Kit Bond (MO) and Jay Rockefeller (WV) rise to oppose it. Bond says that the amendment would prevent the gov't from using and disseminating important information for no reason. I always thought that if the government obtained information/evidence unlawfully it could not be used to prosecute a person. Perhaps the Feingold amendment goes further to say that such unlawfully obtained information cannot be made public?

60 'ayes' needed for passage.

Here are the votes (so far):

Republican yeas:
Democratic nays: Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Lincoln (AR), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Lieberman (CT), Landrieu (LA)

I'm going network and calling this thing. It doesn't pass. There aren't enough libertarian Republicans in the U.S. Senate. There are other ways to prove that you're not soft on terrorism. Not even Specter (PA) voted for it.

It falls 39 to 56. Neither McCain, Clinton, or Obama voted.

Votes on Two FISA Amendments later tonight

[17:03]
I'm not sure which amendments will get the roll-call votes. Apparently two other amendments are set to pass tonight by voice vote. More work on FISA tomorrow.

Senate passes a stimulus package

[16:46]
Now that the package has passed the Senate, albeit with a few alterations, it will return immediately to the House. It is possible the House will pass the very same package this evening. It would then be ready for the President's signature.

Numerous Republicans voted "no" on the final package. They include: Enzi, Barrasso, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, Sessions, Allard, Murkowski, Shelby, Corker, Hagel, Inhofe.

Yeas 81, nays 16. The bill passes. It will now be sent to the House.

The Senate has agreed to an amendment to the House's stimulus package, 91-6

[16:11]
The senators are now voting on a bipartisan amendment adding a few things to the House-passed package. Chiefly, the Senate will add rebates for senior and war vets to the package. The House will take up the Senate-passed version later tonight.

Here are the votes:

Yeas: Most senators
Nays: Allard (C0), Craig (ID), Coburn (OK), Hagel (NE) ...

John McCain (AZ) arrives to vote "aye." He is fresh off his informal coronation as the Republican Party 2008 presidential nominee, seeing as how Mitt Romney dropped out. It looks as though many senators are extending their hands in congratulation to McCain. I do not believe either of Barack Obama (IL) or Hillary Clinton (NY) have voted...

Amendment passes 91-6. The House stimulus package is amended. Now the Senate will vote on the bill. Once this passes, it will go over to the House immediately.

Alexander rebukes Boxer

[15:34]
Senators have been speaking about the stimulus package that the Senate will soon pass. Barbara Boxer (CA) listed the various proposals that did not make the final cut because Republicans were able to bring them down in yesterday's cloture vote. Lamar Alexander (TN) then asked why she felt it necessary, after the Senate had just reached a good agreement, to point out the things that didn't go through due to the fault of the Republicans. Boxer asks him to yield "since the senator mentioned me by name." She says simply, "I speak the truth." Alexander, who holds the floor, says that's all well and good but repeats his plea that senators "find the good and praise it."

Patty Murray (WA) follows. She shores up Boxer's statement by saying that it's OK for Democrats to voice their disappointment; that but for one vote, the full Senate package would have gone through.

What the Senate stimulus agreement does and does not contain

[14:53]
It does not contain an extension of unemployment benefits.

It does not contain money to beef up the low-income heating assistance program.

It does not contain an extension of expiring tax credits for investment in alternative energy projects, such as retrofitting a house with solar panels.

It does not contain some sort of housing revenue bond provision that went over my head.

It does not contain money for food stamps.

Reid just attempted to have separate amendments for unemployment benefits, low-income heating assistance, extension of environmental tax credits etc. brought up for separate votes. Judd Gregg (NH) objected to all of these requests. These things won't be in the bill.

Through process of elimination, it sounds like the Senate will be adding the following to the House-passed version of the stimulus package:

Checks for seniors on social security and checks for disabled veterans and their widows; a fix for a loophole that would have allowed illegal immigrants to get checks.

It's not clear whether the Senate tax rebate checks will be in the order of $500 per person ($1000/couple) as the Finance committee had proposed. Or whether the checks will be in the amount of $600/$1200 as the House agreed.

The votes will start around 16:10.

Reid has just introduced a bipartisan amendment to the stimulus package

[14:45]
The Senate is likely sometime today to pass an omnibus amendment to the House-passed version of an economic stimulus package. If that vote is successful — and it will be successful — the Senate will then vote on the bill. The bipartisan amendment is sponsored by Finance committee leaders Max Baucus (MT) and Charles Grassley (IA) and party leaders Reid and McConnell. However, I am unsure at this point what the amendment contains.

Reid said that senators were still wandering around town and for that reason the vote will not occur immediately. It should occur later today.

[14:06]
The Senate is back in a quorum call and has been for awhile.

Brown gives a speech about his favorite topic

[13:27]
Sherrod Brown (OH) is out on the floor. Now I'm thinking maybe the Senate was just in recess subject to the call of the chair. Normally when it breaks for lunch, it's out until 14:15.

Brown is talking trade. He says that what we have with China is not free trade, "it's a racket." He talks about how China has taken over the global paper market. There used to be paper made in places like my hometown, Chillicothe — once the state Capitol, he notes. What is manufacturing in our country gonna look like in the future? he wonders.

He is asking for a time out on trade agreements.

Senate recesses for lunch

[12:55]
I had to step away this morning but it appears I did not miss much. The Senate is currently on a lunch break. It doesn't seem as though there were any votes this morning. Reid said this morning that the Senate might not finish its version of a stimulus package until Tuesday. I have to think that there will be votes on FISA amendments this afternoon.

After yesterday's cloture vote failure, no agreement yet on stimulus package

[10:31]
There is no way forward yet on the stimulus package, says majority leader Harry Reid (NV). But he and minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) are in discussions, as they will be throughout the day. Until a deal is reached, presumably.

And we have to finish FISA this week, says Reid. Stimulus might have to wait until tomorrow or maybe even Tuesday, he says.

The thing with the stimulus is this: Democrats had a package they wanted passed. It failed cloture yesterday. The Republicans now have a package they want passed. There is still a lot of middle ground between those two packages. The best way to do this is just to offer every distinct benefit as a single amendment and let the people (through their senators) decide on what makes the final cut. But the Senate never takes the easy way. Instead, they'll finagle in the cloak room until one big omnibus amendment takes shape and then that'll have to pass a cloture vote...

Meanwhile, if there is any chance of finishing FISA today, it's going to take all day and all night. It would take a vote-o-rama. Probably more votes in one day than the Senate has held all year, to date.

Opening with a prayer and a pledge

[10:29]
The Senate is just now beginning. With a prayer, as always. Today's guest prayer leader is Rabbi Cheryl Jacobs, from the Jewish Healing Center in Plantation, FL.

And now the pledge of allegiance.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008: Senate stimulus package falls one vote short of advancing

Senate stands in recess until 10:30 tomorrow

[19:32]
That's it for the day. A FISA amendment fell, as did the Senate stimulus package. Reid will speak tomorrow when the session begins. I expect votes on FISA amendments tomorrow, in addition to a vote or two on amendments to the House-passed stimulus package.

Quorum call

[19:13]
The Senate has been in a quorum call for a little while, ever since the cloture vote on the Senate stimulus package failed. Majority leader Reid acknowledged just afterward that senators would likely vote on one omnibus or several piecemeal amendments to the House-passed version of the package. Republicans have already shown a willingness to add checks for seniors and the military disabled to the House package. Also necessary will be a fix to ensure that illegal immigrants do not receives rebate checks. Can Democrats get anything else added? That's the question.

Eight Republicans weren't enough to move the package along

[18:13]
The Senate Finance's committee's take on economic stimulus needed 60 votes to advance on the Senate floor but came up one vote short, 59 to 40. McCain was the only no-vote.

Eight Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the package: Domenici (NM), Grassley (IA), Dole (NC), Snowe (ME), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Specter (PA), Smith (OR).

No Democrat voted against cloture. You will read that the final vote was 58-41, which is true. But for procedural reasons, the majority leader always changes his vote at the very end (so he can continue to control the measure). If you count Reid, the amendment got 59 votes.

From here, it's likely that several portions of the Senate package will be re-offered as a single amendment, winning easy approval. The House would then have to approve the package, as amended in the Senate. Or the two packages could be reconciled in conference.

I gotta say, when there is such a narrow vote in the Senate, I really want to know how all senators would have voted. McCain skipped out on this vote. Would he have voted against cloture anyway? We'll never know.

How the voting went...

[17:47]
Senators are now voting on whether to limit debate on a stimulus package that the Senate Finance committee has put together, somewhat in an act of autonomy on the part of the Senate. The House passed its own version of a stimulus package in January, winning approval from President Bush. The Senate package runs at $158b as opposed to the House's $146b. Check here for some other differences.

60 senators need to vote 'Aye' to keep the Senate package alive. So, Democrats need to hold rank and pick up 9 Republicans.

The votes:

Aye: Democrats plus Domenici (NM), Grassley (IA), Dole (NC), Snowe (ME), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Specter (PA), Smith (OR) (need one more)
Nay: Republicans

Obama and Clinton voted 'aye' but McCain (AZ) hasn't voted yet...

Falls 59 to 40. Sixty were needed. McCain was the only no-vote.

Coburn wonders where stimulus money is going to come from

[16:31]
No one asks where the money to pay for this stimulus package is going to come from, says Tom Coburn (OK). He cites the Japanese gov't that made similar mistakes trying to avoid recession but incurred instead 10 years of stagnation. There aren't higher revenues collected through taxes with this package. We're gonna bankrupt our children further, whether we pass the House bill or the Senate bill.

Coburn calls for an extension of the Bush tax cuts and a lowering of corporate tax rates. He says that moves like these will introduce certainty and investment, which brings on economic growth.

Approaching vote on Senate's version of stimulus package

[16:30]
There is going to be forty-five minutes of debate by both sides, leading up to the 17:45 cloture vote.

Specter calls for courts to remain open, saying "This is not Pakistan."

[16:11]
Arlen Specter (PA) notes that the President has cited his authority under Article II of the Constitution to ignore the laws passed by Congress when instituting his warrantless surveillance program after the Sept. 11th attacks.

Well, be that as it may, Specter says, a court needs to decide whether or not Bush had the const'l authority to do this.

Specter seems to oppose giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies who helped the gov't collect the communications (including e-mail) of non-terrorist Americans after Sept. 11, 2001. Specter, along with Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), is offering an amendment to this FISA legislation that would substitute the Federal Government for the telecom companies as defendant in the 40 or so pending lawsuits stemming from the warrantless spying program.

Inouye (HI) casts 15,000th vote

[15:48]
With that failed attempt to attach an earlier sunset provision to the new FISA legislation, Daniel Inouye (HI) cast his 15,00th vote as a U.S. senator. Reid is now paying tribute to Inouye, noting his military service in WWII. Inouye was featuring as an interviewee in Ken Burns's The War. He is the recipient of a Medal of Honor for combat bravery.

As you can see here, only three other senators have reached 15,000 votes. Those include Strom Thurmond and current senators Ted Kennedy (MA) and the all-time leader, Robert C. Byrd (WV) who has over 18,000 votes.

McConnell (KY) followed Reid's tribute. And now at 15:58 Daniel Akaka (HI) is paying his tribute.

Needing 60 votes, first FISA amendment fails

[15:27]
First up a Cardin amendment sunsetting certain parts of FISA after four years. Pending before the Senate is FISA legislation affecting only certain parts of FISA (namely, those regarding the way that our gov't conducts wiretapping and other electronic surveillance). It contains a sunset provision of six years. Cardin's amendment shortens that sunset period, requiring Congress to look back at the legislation in four years' time.

The votes come in...

Yes: Democrats.
No: Republicans.

The Democrats aren't picking up any moderate Republican votes...

Obama just voted 'Aye.' I don't think Clinton was there to vote.

The amendment fails, 49 to 46. It needed 60 votes to pass under the agreement the parties reached to bring the FISA amendments up for vote. Generally, amendments need only a simple majority to pass. Not on this bill.

Rockefeller and Bond oppose a Feingold/Webb/Tester amendment to FISA bill

[11:10]
Check here for a quick recap on the FISA bill.

Intelligence chairman Jay Rockefeller (WV) just spoke in opposition to a Feingold/Webb/Tester amendment affecting the way the gov't uses communications collected under FISA. Rockefeller said that the FISA legislation already specifies that the gov't must comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on unreasonable search and seizure. So, rest assured.

Intelligence vice-chairman Kit Bond (MO) says that if the amendment becomes law, the intelligence community might very well shut down. Intelligence community officials have recommended the veto of any legislation containing the amendment. Bond says that the amendment could prevent the U.S. from listening in if Osama bin Laden placed a call to the U.S.

This Feingold/Webb/Tester amendment says that when/if the gov't accesses and disseminates a recorded communication that it certify to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court that the communication involves a party suspected of terrorism.

So Feingold says that, Yes, America could listen to a communication believed to include Osama. He is someone suspected of terrorism. All the gov't has to do is certify this belief to the FISA court.

Hatch says senators don't need sunset provision on FISA legislation

[10:58]
Orrin Hatch (UT) displays a board saying that other than the PATRIOT Act and that act's reauthorization, 7 of the 8 pieces of legislation affecting FISA did not include sunset provisions. Hatch says that he doesn't need a legislative alarm clock to go off in order to alert him to national security matters.

Ben Cardin (MD) has introduces an amendment to the pending FISA legislation that would sunset the bill in four years. The legislation already contains a six-year sunset.

Senate leaders open with remarks on horrible weather events, stimulus package

[9:36]
The Senate got underway a few moments ago. Harry Reid (NV) is speaking on the floor. He said it was going to be a big day in the Senate. The presidential-candidate senators would be in the house for this evening's 17:45 cloture vote on the Senate's own version of an economic stimulus package. That legislation, which exists now as an amendment to the House-passed version of the stimulus, needs to get 60 votes tonight to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate. The Senate's stimulus varies in several ways from the House package. Right now Reid is talking about how it includes checks for seniors, where the House package does not; it includes extra funds for the low-income heating assistance program, where the House package does not.

Reid and now [9:41] minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) have sent their thoughts and prayers to the families and victims affected by the terrible weather that passed through several states including McConnell's own Kentucky. The weather brought tornadoes to Arkansas and Tennessee as well.

McConnell is now voicing support for an amendment to the House-passed stimulus plan that is less robust than the Finance committee version. This Republican Senate stimulus plan would definitely get signed, he says. The Finance committee deal might not get signed. The Republican offering offers checks to seniors, relief for disabled vets, and also fixes the loophole in the House package that would send checks to some illegal immigrants. This loophole exists because of language that gives rebates to anyone with a taxpayer ID. The fix specifies that only taxpayers with valid social security numbers could get checks.

Text of Obama Super Tuesday Speech

I wanted to include a clip of the Barack Obama (IL) speech from the night of Super Tuesday. I thought it was his best speech of the campaign. I found full text of the speech here. I begin the clip with where he began to compare himself and Hillary Clinton (NY)...

This isn’t about me and it’s not about Senator Clinton. As I’ve said before, she was a friend before this campaign, she’ll be a friend after it’s over.

I respect her. I respect her as a colleague. I congratulate her on her victories tonight. She’s been running an outstanding race.

But this fall — this fall, we owe the American people a real choice.

We have to choose between change and more of the same. We have to choose between looking backwards and looking forwards. We have to choose between our future and our past.

It’s a choice between going into this election with Republicans and independents already united against us or going against their nominee with a campaign that has united Americans of all parties, from all backgrounds, from all races, from all religions, around a common purpose.

It’s a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington or having one about who is most likely to change Washington, because that’s a debate that we can win.

It’s a choice between a candidate who’s taken more money from Washington lobbyists from either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money, because we have been funded by you. You have funded this campaign.

And if I am your nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq, because I didn’t, or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, because I haven’t, or that I support the Bush-Cheney doctrine of not talking to leaders we don’t like, because I profoundly disagree with that approach.

And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it’s OK for America to use torture, because it’s never OK.

That is the choice in this election.

The Republicans running for president have already tied themselves to the past. The speak of 100-year war in Iraq. They talk about billions more in tax breaks for the wealthiest few, who don’t need them and didn’t even ask them, tax breaks that mortgage our children’s future on a mountain of debt, at a time when there are families who can’t pay their medical bills and students who can’t pay their tuition.

Those Republicans are running on the politics of yesterday and that is why our party must be the party of tomorrow, and that is the party that I intend to lead as president of the United States of America.

I’ll be the president who ends the tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of hardworking Americans who deserve them and struggling homeowners who deserve them and seniors who should retire with dignity and respect and deserve them.

I’ll be the president who finally brings Democrats and Republicans together to make health care affordable and available for every single American.

We will put a college education within the reach of anyone who wants to go. And instead of just talking about how great our teachers are, we will reward them for their greatness with more pay and better support.

And we will harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all and we will invest in solar and wind and biodiesel, clean energy, green energy that can fuel economic development for generations to come.

That’s what we’re going to do when I’m president of the United States.

When I’m president, we will put an end to the politics of fear, a politics that uses 9/11 as a way to scare up votes. We’re going to start seeing 9/11 as a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century, terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease.

We can do this. We can do this. But it will not be easy. It will require a struggle and it will require sacrifice. There will be setbacks and we will make mistakes.

And that is why we need all the help we can get. So tonight, I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement, but still hunger for change.

They know it in their gut. They know we can do better than we’re doing. They know that we can take our politics to a higher level.

But they’re afraid. They’ve been taught to be cynical. They’re doubtful that it can be done. But I’m here to say tonight to all of you who still harbor those doubts, we need you.

We need you to stand with us. We need you to work with us. We need you to help us prove that together ordinary people can still do extraordinary things in the United States of America.

I am blessed to be standing in the city where my own extraordinary journey of service began. You know, just a few miles from here, down in the Southside, in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant, it was there that I learned what it takes to make change happen.

I was a young organizer then. In fact, there are some folks here who I organized with. A young organizer intent on fighting joblessness and poverty on the Southside, and I still remember one of the very first meetings I put together.

We had worked on it for days. We had made phone calls, we had knocked on doors, we had put out flyers. But on that night, nobody showed up. Our volunteers, who had worked so hard, felt so defeated, they wanted to quit. And to be honest, so did I.

But at that moment, I happened to look outside and I saw some young boys tossing stones at a boarded-up apartment building across the street.

They were like the boys in so many cities across the country. Little boys, but without prospects, without guidance, without hope for the future.

And I turned to the volunteers and I asked them, “Before you quit, before you give up, I want you to answer one question. What will happen to those boys if we don’t stand up for them?”

And those volunteers, they looked out that window and they saw those boys and they decided that night to keep going, to keep organizing, keep fighting for better schools, fighting for better jobs, fighting for better health care, and I did, too.

And slowly, but surely, in the weeks and months to come, the community began to change.

You see, the challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night. It will not be resolved on even a super-duper Tuesday.

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who’ve been told that they cannot have what they dreamed, that they cannot be what they imagine.

Yes, they can. We are the hope of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake with doubt that tells him he cannot give his children the same opportunities that someone gave him.

Yes, he can.

We are the hope of the woman who hears that her city will not be rebuilt, that she cannot somehow claim the life that was swept away in a terrible storm.

Yes, she can.

We are the hope of the future, the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided, that we cannot come together, that we cannot remake this world as it should be.

We know that we have seen something happen over the last several weeks, over the past several months. We know that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored, that will not be deterred, that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, make this time different than all the rest.

Yes, we can. Let’s go to work. Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

Thank you, Chicago. Let’s go get to work. I love you.

Quick recap on status of FISA revision

A quick recap on the FISA bill. The bill revises certain parts of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A judiciary committee version of the revision failed to get 60 votes. The Intelligence committee's version of the bill is alive and pending on the floor. Democrats are trying to amend the Intelligence committee's bill with a series of amendments.

February 5, 2008: Vote on Senate stimulus package will be tomorrow at 17:45

Before Senate recesses, Reid asks for nine Republicans to step forward on Senate stimulus

[19:22]
The Senate will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30. At 17:45, senators will vote on the Finance committee's version of a stimulus package (that exists in the form of an amendment). Reid suspects that other roll-call votes could happen earlier in the day, assuming some deal on FISA is reached.

Have fun watching the votes come in tonight (and tomorrow morning).

Senate stimulus faces cloture vote tomorrow evening at 17:45

[19:11]
Reid asked for consent to hold such a vote. McConnell, reserving the right to object, proposed instead that if cloture was not invoked on the Senate stimulus package that there would then be a vote on a Stevens amendment that would add checks for seniors and the military disabled as well as fixing the illegal immigrant loophole. Reid objected. But McConnell did not then object to the Reid request. That was a bit surprising.

So, that's a vote on the Finance committee's version of an economic stimulus plan, which differs in various ways from that passed by the House in January. That plan is actually in the form of an amendment. It needs 60 votes for cloture to be invoked and debate therefore limited on the amendment (assuring its passage).

Dodd introduces his amendment striking the immunity provision from pending FISA bill

[17:25]
He will take a brief moment today to offer the amendment while saving time to debate it in full on another day (tomorrow?)

Dodd says that opponents of striking telecom immunity from the bill claim that doing so would cause these companies financial damage. That argument is so offensive that I hardly feel the need to refute it. (But he does, to wit:) The idea that the financial health of these companies should take precedent over the rule of law is terribly offensive. It should never be the case.

This isn't about "a bunch of Democrats going after a Republican adminstration," says Dodd. If this were a Democratic administration, I'd be standing here with just as much passion as I'm standing here today.

Bond denies that Bush Administration ever instituted an illegal wiretapping program

[17:20]
I wonder then why the Senate is trying to rewrite FISA to accommodate warrantless wiretapping.

Bond and Feingold have been going back about Feingold's amendments. Bond says that the AG and the DNI have said that Feingold's amendments would make it impossible for them to carry out the necessary intelligence collection. But at the same time, Bond says that the substance of Feingold's amendments is already contained in the language of the FISA bill now on the floor. I don't see how both can be true.

Bond says that Feingold's concerns do not address anything that has actually occurred. Feingold says he sent the DNI a classified letter voicing concerns about violation of FISA that occurred since last August.

Feingold introduces an amendment banning "bulk collection"

[16:56]
Chris Dodd (CT) is co-sponsoring this amendment, No. 3912. Feingold says that even the new FISA legislation allows the gov't to capture ALL international communications, to or from the United States "for no good reason." He calls it a "communications dragnet" and notes that it "raises serious constitutional questions."

At what point do we draw the line? At what point does the Constitution mean something?

Feingold says that the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has said that bulk collection is "desirable."

So, the gov't would have to certify to a court that it is collecting only the communications of foreign targets and that a foreign intelligence purpose for collection exists.

He challenges anyone who opposes the amendment to stand on the floor and explain to Americans why bulk collection is necessary.

Here's Kit Bond (MO) to respond. Bond says Feingold is raising all kinds of concerns that the underlying bill already addresses. And he says, "And the Constitution already addresses it." Unfortunately, the Constitution is not a self-executing document. he goes on to say, We are not collecting all of these communications, he says.

And, Bond says, that the bill already bans reverse targeting.

Feingold introduces amendment targeting reverse targeting

[16:49]
Reverse targeting is the idea that because FISA requires a court order to target an American on American soil, the gov't might instead wiretap the phone of someone overseas whom the gov't believes will be in contact with the American in question.

Russ Feingold (WI) is introducing an amendment to the FISA legislation outlawing the practice of reverse targeting by the U.S. gov't when the true target is an American on American soil. In those cases, the gov't has to go to court to get a warrant for surveillance.

There's not much going on this afternoon

[15:50]
There just isn't that much happening in the Senate this afternoon. The Democrats are trying to burn a bunch of post-cloture time that Republicans are demanding be used (Senate rule allows for x number of hours, maximum, of debate post-cloture).

So Patty Murray (WA), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Ken Salazar (CO), and now Byron Dorgan (ND) have talked about the Senate version of the stimulus package. Most of them have given chart presentations. In the case of Dorgan and Murray, they gave similar speeches last week.

Senate recesses until 14:15

[12:25]
The Senate has recessed until 14:15. It was not a pretty morning in that august deliberative body, some say the world's greatest. The U.S. Senate.

Byrd struggles to deliver speech on civility amongst senators

[12:22]
Robert Byrd (WV) is saying that senators are supposed to address one another in the third person, not the second person. So as to cut down on tempers flaring between two senators. For example, "Is the senator from West Virginia aware...?"

But Byrd, whom I have not seen speaking on the floor yet this year, had a hard time delivering this admonition.

Reid makes unanimous consent request to move to FISA, McConnell rejects

[12:03]
Minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) says that the stimulus package and FISA are intertwined by the issue of how move forward "fairly." He wants to work on them, he says. But we need to agree on a process for dealing with them. So he objects.

Reid responds with a reference to Orwell's 1984. You got out of that book talk of a time when people say one thing but really mean something else. Why in the world can't we do FISA legislation today? I'll give you a reason. The other side wants to stall. They want this legislation to be done at the last minute, to give conferees little time to work on it.

All we're gonna end up doing today is standing and looking at each other. Reid is saying that Democrats have to wait "until time runs out" to file cloture on the Senate stimulus package. At least let us use some of that time to debate FISA amendments.

What is happening here is that Senate rules say that there is a maximum amount of time post-cloture for debating legislation (including amendments). Republicans are forcing the Senate to use up all of that time. It is a type of filibuster.

Senators, please come to the floor

[11:57]
The Senate is in the midst of voting on a motion to request the presence of absent senators. The Democrats all seem to be voting for it along with a good amount of Republicans. I'm not really sure what the point is, though.

The motion is agreed to, 73 to 12. The vote establishes that a quorum is present.

Reid says that the point of the vote was to move the process on the stimulus package forward. He now says that the next big vote on the Senate stimulus will be one hour after the Senate convenes on Thursday.

Precap:

Yesterday, majority leader Harry Reid (NV) seemed to think that the Senate could vote on FISA amendments this morning.

However, as I look at the Senate schedule, it appears that the Senate will convene at 10:00, at which time it will begin a period of morning business. Thereafter, it will resume consideration of H.R. 5140, the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008.

It was H.R. 5140 itself that survived a cloture vote yesterday in the Senate. But H.R. 5140 is the House version of the stimulus package, not the Senate's version. The Senate's version exists as an amendment to H.R. 5140.

Republicans appear to be requiring that the Senate spend a certain amount of post-cloture time on H.R. 5140 (i.e. the maximum amount of time) thus preventing the Senate from moving to anything else, e.g. FISA. A vote on the add-ons that the Senate wants to become part of the package won't come until Thursday.

Senate rules regarding post-cloture time for debate prevent Democrats from calling up a different piece of legislation for debate in the meanwhile. In essence, Democrats want to get to a vote on their version of the stimulus ASAP. Any time they spend on FISA is that much more time they must wait to get the stimulus package moving. It's a real pickle.