« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
GOPers Block Amendments on Surveillance Bill, Debate Postponed Till Monday
OK, here's where things stand with the surveillance bill. There was just a flurry of activity on the Senate floor.
After this morning's vote, where the judiciary committee's bill was killed by Republicans and a handful of Dems, a number of amendments were to be offered -- among them, the Dodd/Feingold bill that would strip retroactive immunity. But the Republicans objected to any of these from coming up for a vote under simple majority rules.
Finally, about twenty minutes ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) moved for a vote on cloture -- that would force an end to debate and trigger a simple majority vote on the underlying Senate intelligence committee version of the bill (which has retroactive immunity). To do that, he'll need 60 votes.
Reid objected to this, said that he would vote against it, and then postponed the vote until Monday. We'll get you Reid's remarks as soon as we have them.
Update: A rough transcript of Reid's remarks are below.
We want, if necessary, within the confines of the law, to do wiretapping of these bad people. But, Mr. President, Having said that we want to do it within the confines of our Law and our constitution. We want to make sure that this wiretapping does not include innocent Americans who just happen to be part of what they're collecting. That's what the American People expect us to do.So I again say Mr. President, no one can question our patriotism, our willingness to keep our homeland safe. We have tried to move forward on this legislation. We have tried in many different ways. What we have been doing today and yesterday is moving forward on this legislation just as the distinguished Senator from California said. There are amendments that will make this legislation better. Now that's in the eye of the beholder. We all understand that. But shouldn't the Senate have the ability to vote on those amendments?
No matter what we do as a Senate it has to have a conference with the house. They have already passed their legislation. But we have been stalled every step of the way. Every step of the way, the Feingold Amendment, for example, was offered certainly it is germane. But he is being told, we're being told he can't get a vote on this amendment because it concerns the FISA court orders well, his amendment was discussed at length previously half of it was accepted on a bipartisan basis much the other half wasn't. But certainly he is entitled to a vote Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feingold and I don't want to embarrass him – he is really a legal scholar. He went to one of our highest Law Schools in the world, he is a Rhodes Scholar.
Senator Whitehouse has been Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island and is certainly, Mr. President, known all over the country as someone who understands the law. He has been a tremendously good person as a member of the United States Senate. He served on both committees – the intelligence committee on the Judiciary Committee. He is a thoughtful person. The legislation that came out of the intelligence committee should be improved and as a pen of the judiciary committee he worked to have that improved. He offered an amendment a short time ago, sough to offer an amendment, a major main amendment concerning – a germane amendment concerning minimization which means if you pick up by mistake an American you drop that you push that out of the way that isn't going to be made public in any manner we want to vote on that. It seems everyone would vote for it. I would certainly hope it is but there is an objection to even having a vote on that amendment. Senator Cardin, along time member of the congress relatively new member of the senate but a long time experience member of the congress of the United States sought to offer an amendment, a germane amendment shortening the sunset provision. The Bill that is before us that came out of the intelligence committee is for six years.
Now, Mr. President, things are changing rapidly in our country and in the world as it relates to things electronic. We don't know what is going to take place in regard to terrorism, violence or what's going to take place with our ability to do better jobs electronically to uncover some of the stuff we believe can be uncovered. He wants this legislation not to be for six years, for yours. That is – for six years but four years. He has been unable to offer that simple amendment. Senator Feinstein has just given a very fine statement seeking consent to offer a major main amendment on, excuse -- A germane amendment on FISA. There have been editorials virtually in every state of the union in the newspapers saying that it should be the law, but she has not been able to offer that amendment. Senator Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, Mr. President, I wanted it would offer an amendment. That is so rational, so important, he says, let's have the inspector general do an investigation about the whole wiretapping program to find out what has taken place who has been involved in it and report back to congress. He sets a reasonable time. Guess what? We can't even vote on that. He can't even offer the Amendment.
I say to my friends that it doesn't matter what we try to do, we can't do it. It appears that the minority, the president, and the republicans want failure. They don't want a bill. So that's why they're jamming this forward. I am going to vote against cloture on this Mr. President. It is not fair that we have a major piece of legislation like this and were not even allowed to offer whether the bill should be four years or six years? Or an amendment on millions of Americans picked up by mistake are brought out in the public eye. Or senator Feingold's amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment, if there were ever a catch 22, this is it. What were being asked to do is irrational, irresponsible and wrong. Where does this catch 22 come from.
[…]
I've said we will take a 30-day extension. We'll take a two-week extension, we'll take a 12-Month extension, we will take an 18-Month extension.
I tell all my friends I have been told and I appreciate very much my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell who has told me he has a cloture petition all signed. He will file it as soon as I yield the floor to him. I would say to all my friends that under regular order we will later that 1:00 Monday so the 30 hours runs out at its original time on Tuesday. If cloture is not invoked and I am not going to vote for cloture, unless the president agrees to some extension time, the program will fail.
I don't know any way out of this. But I in good conscience cannot support this legislation and at least unless we have a vote on retroactivity of immunity, I can't vote on it for cloture unless some of the very basic Amendments that people want to offer are allowed they would all agree on very short time lines.
No one is questioning spending a lot of time. We, the Democrats, are not in any way trying to stall this bill. We've been trying to expedite it for a long time now.
Comments (31)
Bye wrote on January 24, 2008 6:04 PM:d
ss wrote on January 24, 2008 6:05 PM:Survey says: Reid didn't have the 60 votes needed to ensure that his sellout was complete...
madashell wrote on January 24, 2008 6:27 PM:I think some people don't understand this action. This bill is to stop non reported eavesdropping and to allow the public to witness in the courts the slimey profiteering George and Dick were up to. They probably got a lot of business information to help their buds at
David in Burbank wrote on January 24, 2008 6:31 PM:Haliburton and KBR. But we won't find out because we are just here to pay the bills.
So the Republicans filibuster every amendment to the bill and then demand an end to the filibuster of the bill.
And Reid falls for it.
Thomas wrote on January 24, 2008 6:58 PM:Sigh...
If the GOP is going to block a vote on the amendments, why not just pull the bill, and substitute some other version that lacks immunity? The Majority Leader has this power; the power to pull a bill when the GOP does something bad is the point of gaining the majority in the Senate.
So why not use his power? Because Reid is desperate to give the telecoms immunity. Absolutely desperate.
DaddyD wrote on January 24, 2008 7:04 PM:Just a thought... instead of blogging your complaints, why don't you (all of) call the Obama and Clinton campaigns and demand they stand against telecom immunity? Ask them to go back to WDC and use their formidable leadership skills to persuade others to flip sides. Ask them to participate in a filibuster. I'll start you all off with Obama's campaign headquarter's number: 1-866-675-2008. Tell 'em your a supporter, but you expectd more leadership on this... now they've got until Monday to deliver.
peterboy wrote on January 24, 2008 7:15 PM:Clinton and Obama are dead to me and everyone I know as progressives if they dont filibuster to kill this bill, which would hide bush and telco criminality behind a web of lies.
I will NOT vote in the election for either one if they do not lead now. why wait until jan 2009, when they can bring the campaign press to the senate and make clear that what BUSCHCO wants is a bogus effort. that the fisa court can handle warrants and that a few telecoms should not be favored for violating our liberties.
Nanz wrote on January 24, 2008 7:21 PM:I agree with DaddyD. Clinton and Obama, by going to the Senate for the Monday cloture vote, or filibuster, would garner needed publicity for the FISA amendment that isn't getting factual coverage as far as I can see, and it would change the subject from this horrid bickering that is so debasing for them, not to mention really tiresome. Kill two birds--eg: publicity for FISA / divert from sniping, not to mention show some needed leadership and a sense of priorities.
sorry for long run on sentence.
GOP Less Relevant wrote on January 24, 2008 7:25 PM:This tabling is important news. GOP shows us they will only approve what is unknown going forward, unless they are granted immunity for what was wrong going backwards. That amounts to a threat of continued illegal action unless they are immunized. Congress has no power to assert judicial power with a grant of immunity.
It's an error to believe that this bill is a defeat: It's tabling shows many flaws with the GOP. If We the People defied written law on this scale, the Congress could indeed declare us in rebellion and eny Habeas. The link ["GOP Less relevant"] discusses more: The tabling helps expose the flaws with the GOP assertions.
Immunity could be discussed as a separte question. the GOP would only approve over lawful compliance going forward if they are immunized for illegalities going backward. That is not governance, but anarchy.
Time to call the US Congress what it is: In rebellion, unworthy of respect, and a contemptible lot. We the People have the power to discuss new governance for this failed republic. Not just with new elections, but with a modernized oversight system. [Details at the link]
notsurprised wrote on January 24, 2008 7:36 PM:Reid is a bytch, a liar and a scumbag.
ss wrote on January 24, 2008 7:38 PM:Maybe he's delaying the vote to allow Hillary and Barack to fly in and do some photo-op immunity resistance for a while (it would play nicely with the base)... after all, Reid wants telecom immunity, but he also wants a democratic president in 09...
xargaw wrote on January 24, 2008 8:12 PM:Reid is an embarrassment. What I want to know is who is blackmailing him? He can't be this bad on his own.
The Declaration of Independence wrote on January 24, 2008 8:19 PM:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Declaration of Independence (II) wrote on January 24, 2008 8:22 PM:Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.
Dec Indy wrote on January 24, 2008 8:40 PM:Just felt like we needed a reminder of true leadership from the Greats.
Forceful blogging and investigative hearings weren't it.
Reread it all, then do something. Contact your congressperson. Now. Tonight. Let them know how their own voting republic is not supportive of their actions (or inaction). It was scary then, too, but they did something about it.
Find out what you can do. Volunteer for a watchdog group. Donate (if you can). Most importantly, educate yourselves fully on the issues. Don't trust any single media source, including this one. Everybody slants the truth. They can't help it. Once educated, become a voice for actual truth and justice to those in power. It is our right and our duty.
Lonny wrote on January 24, 2008 8:45 PM:Does Cheney have Reid by the nutsack? Why is Harry so damned intent on pardoning criminal activity?
John H. Farr wrote on January 24, 2008 9:08 PM:I'm with the person above who said that Obama and Clinton are dead to him if they don't pull out all the stops to defeat telecom immunity.
Harry Reid is less than zero. The Democratic party has the integrity of a slug. They have sold their souls to the political consulting class and deserve to burn in hell for trashing our fundamental freedoms. WE NEVER GO BACK, you know. Once a thing is lost, it's never restored.
Why should I vote? Why should I care? I have no party now.
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 9:10 PM:What a pathetic wheedling little liar Reid is.
He makes me want to puke.
ernesto wrote on January 24, 2008 9:23 PM:Why does Harry Reid insist on saying things like "nobody can question our patriotism?" Why would you ever repeat a Republican attack point?
midwestblue wrote on January 24, 2008 9:52 PM:And to think that Reid didn't have to bring up Rockefeller's bill to begin with. All of this could have been avoided. Sigh.
rapier wrote on January 24, 2008 9:58 PM:I suppose, though, Reid thought he could easily ram it through, no matter what his constituents thought (after all, they do it with the Occupation funding). In my opinion, the fact that he couldn't get Rockefeller's bill through so easily shows the people have some voice, at least. What a sad state of affairs when weasels like Reid and Rockefeller rule the roost.
They are all waiting for the next terrorist attack here. Everyone knows it will happen. They want to cover their asses. There is no stopping it. This spying certainly won't stop it but at least they can say they tried.
In the end you know that is what Bush is all about, on the war, the torture, the spying. Guilt that he screwed up the first time. He wasn't watching, and then the Pet Goat and the flight over Nebraska.
Also, an attack in the right place or on the right scale now could be an excuse to let all this bad debt go bad, as it must. Deflecting all blame from our elites.
Boar D Laze wrote on January 24, 2008 11:36 PM:If I'm not mistaken, Reid brought the Judiciary Committee's version of FISA to the floor first -- which gave "no immunity" an up or down vote -- and it lost. But it was still what we who oppose immunity wanted. We just lost. You can't blame Reid for giving us what we wanted.
Then, the effect of Reid's and McConnell's subsequent actions today prevent the Intelligence Committee's version of the bill (with telecom immunity) from moving to the floor without 60 votes (cloture) to move it. This is because the Republicans don't want an up or down on the Feinstein and Kennedy amendments. But, those 60 votes are problematic. Because of the provisions of the previous extension, this means that unless a new law is enacted by Monday (which is problematic), the old law will (without immunity) will be in effect. It's very possible this is how things will work out.
Sabastian Belfon wrote on January 24, 2008 11:40 PM:I'm with the persons above who said that Obama and Clinton are dead to them if they don't pull out all the stops to defeat telecom immunity.
"[The Democrats] have sold their souls to the political consulting class and deserve to burn in hell for trashing our fundamental freedoms." Here! Here!
I've been trying to stand by the Democrats but if they cave on this I have had it the all fo them.
Eric wrote on January 25, 2008 12:20 AM:Claire McCaskill, a major Obama backer and a focus of his national TV ads, voted FOR the FISA bill today. How does Obama feel about such a major supporter supporting this invasion of our privacy and why is he giving her a national stage in his commercials?
Joshua the Teacher wrote on January 25, 2008 1:08 AM:If this new version passes, how will it be funded? I seem to remember a story about how our very "patriotic" telecoms cut the wiretaps bc the government couldn't pay the bills. Maybe Dems can undercut this thing by underfunding it (like No Child Left Behind).
DancingBear wrote on January 25, 2008 6:34 AM:Or we can just shred the Bill of Rights and be done with it, whatever...
Eric, how does Hillary feel about her Superdelegate endorsements from Senators Pryor, Bayh, Inouye and Mikulski, all of whom voted with the Republicans (and McCaskill) to table the no-immunity FISA bill today?
Jim2445 wrote on January 25, 2008 9:25 AM:I suspect Reid has the votes to sell out to the Republicans, but we have put so much pressure on him and other Senators that the Democrats are trying to figure out which Senator bites the bullet and is the 60th vote.
To defeat the Judiciary Bill they got Ben Nelson to flip, even though Nelson was publicly against immunity. Anyone know who he was protecting?
I have called Obama and Clinton to ask them to be on the Senate Floor to support Sen Dodd. I have also called Senator Durbin's office; his aide seemed to say that Durbin would vote for over riding Dodd's filibuster although he has not done so yet.
I will be calling the DCCC and the DSCC
and asking if the are planning to help any Democrat who sides with the Telecoms on this. At least this will alow me to tell them that I am giving what little money I have to Pera, Donna Edwards, and the DFA.
Jane wrote on January 25, 2008 9:25 AM:Last I knew she wasn't featuring them in ads.
Ben Nelson also endorsed Obama.
Centerpunch wrote on January 25, 2008 9:39 AM:What this needs is a good-ole scary scenario to "Bush" this bill through Monday... watch-out, the sky may be falling this weekend! The threat level heightened-- "the Iranians are coming!".
In fact, I saw some brief news of heightened threat level via Al-Quieda.
Hold yer ears, folks! We're about to be sprayed with a shitstorm of Crapaganda!
danger wrote on January 25, 2008 9:45 AM:rapier wrote on January 24, 2008 9:58 PM:
They are all waiting for the next terrorist attack here. Everyone knows it will happen. They want to cover their asses. There is no stopping it. This spying certainly won't stop it but at least they can say they tried.
Easy now there. Don't be so fearful!
As much as Reid appears to be an utter scumbag on the surface, delaying the debate until the day of the State of the Union is a move of pure genius! Not to mention that Kucinich is going to throw in the articles of impeachment before the Senate can vote on FISA. This is going to be GLORIOUS.
One can only hope!
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 10:25 AM:Jane wrote: "Ben Nelson also endorsed Obama."
Fair enough. So has Tim Johnson. The point is that you can't exactly hold the candidates responsible for all of the actions of everyone that endorses them.