[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Surveillance Bill Stalls in Senate Surveillance Bill Stalls in Senate By Tim Starks, CQ Staff Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled legislation from the floor that would overhaul electronic surveillance rules, leaving Congress little time to act early next year before provisions in the current law expire. Reid, D-Nev., faced with a backed-up agenda and numerous procedural obstacles on legislation (S 2248) that would rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA (PL 95-511), decided late Monday to delay consideration of the bill until January. Reid’s move dimmed prospects that Democrats would be able to pass new FISA legislation before Feb. 1, the expiration date for a temporary law (PL 110-55) that gave President Bush broad surveillance authority. That measure cleared Congress in the final moments before the August recess when Democrats, under intense pressure from Bush not to leave without authorizing the new surveillance powers, bowed to the president’s demands. On Monday, Democrat Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, a presidential candidate, objected to a plan by Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to speed consideration of the bill. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., the vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the leaders also had difficulty coming up with an agreement on amendments and debate times. “I’ve spoken to a number of the senators, and everyone feels it would be to the best interest of the Senate that we take a look at this when we come back after the first of the year and resume this,” Reid said. Dodd Slows Debate Dodd and other senators opposed to the measure failed in an earlier attempt to block action on it, when a 76-10 procedural vote drew far more than the 60 votes required. Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., then sought to expedite completion of the bill with an agreement that all amendments would need 60 votes to be adopted — a common maneuver in the Senate on legislation with bipartisan support as a way to avoid repeated procedural challenges to completing a bill. Reid pleaded that time was running out on the first session. “This is a very controversial issue,” he said. “We don’t have time to have a lot of cloture votes.” However, Dodd objected to his leader’s pleas. “I am going to do everything I can to change this law or stop it from going forward,” Dodd said. Dodd assailed a provision that would grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program, and he said he planned to offer an amendment that would strike it from the legislation. “I have rarely come to the floor with such anger,” he said. “For the last six years, our largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own American customers. . . . That decision betrayed millions of customers’ trust.” John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, countered that even though he believed the NSA surveillance program “trampled the Constitution,” the companies “should not be penalized” for trying to assist the government in efforts to defend against terrorist attacks. After Reid pulled the bill from the floor, Dodd said he would be willing to explore “compromise” proposals on immunity over the holiday break, such as expected amendments to substitute the federal government as the defendant in lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. Questions of Immunity, Privacy Most Democrats do not like the temporary FISA measure now in effect. If Congress cannot complete work on an overhaul of the law when they return, they will have to choose either to reauthorize the existing law or to let it lapse and endure Republican criticism that they are leaving the country vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks. “I’d be surprised, given all the bad publicity it’s gotten in Democratic circles, if any significant number of Democrats wanted to reauthorize it,” said Rush D. Holt, D-N.J., a member of the House Intelligence Committee. But Jane Harman, D-Calif., a former member of the House Intelligence panel, said Congress’ failure to overhaul the law could set the stage for a second push by Bush to reauthorize the existing law. “We’ve seen this movie before,” she said. “This is the sequel.” One of the major differences between the Senate bill and the version that the House-passed in November (HR 3773) is that the House bill would not grant retroactive legal immunity to the telecommunications companies. Other differences involve the role of the secret court created by the FISA law. The Senate measure would permit warrantless surveillance targeting foreigners overseas, even if they were communicating with someone in the United States. But it would give the secret court the power to approve several aspects of how the surveillance was conducted. The House-passed bill would require the administration to apply to the FISA court for a surveillance warrant permitting spying on a large number of foreign targets that might be communicating with people in the United States. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said the Senate bill does not provide adequate privacy protections for surveillance of U.S. citizens who are speaking with foreigners overseas. Bond, however, said it had “gone further than ever . . . in protecting America’s privacy rights.” The bill came to the floor under an unusual procedure because the Intelligence panel wrote the base bill and Judiciary received a sequential referral. The underlying Intelligence-approved bill and Judiciary panel’s substitute differ primarily on the issue of immunity, but there are other differences that staffers have been trying to reconcile. One manager’s amendment, according to Rockefeller, would replace the underlying bill’s six-year expiration date with the Judiciary amendment’s four-year expiration date. Another would make what Rockefeller called “technical” changes to warrant requirements for surveillance of U.S. citizens overseas contained in both committee bills. Aides and administration officials have declined to explain why the White House opposed that requirement when it was included in the Intelligence-approved bill, saying that it delves into classified matters. Rockefeller said the White House has endorsed the manager’s amendment. A third area of dispute between the two panels is still under discussion, regarding the degree to which FISA would remain the “exclusive” law governing electronic surveillance. Greg Vadala contributed to this story. Source: CQ Today
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
CQ says the Senate isn't returning until Jan. 22. Doesn't leave much time to meet the Feb. 1 deadline.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||