The House is now voting on changes to the new federal surveillance law.

There were plenty of Democrats speaking out against it during the hour-long debate.

"This bill scares me to death and I urge a no-vote," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), co-chair of the House's Progressive Caucus.

She compared the bill to the era of former FBI head J. Edgar Hoover. "We already remember how Dr. [Martin Luther] King and his family were the victims of the government's most shameless wiretapping. We must never go down this road again."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), gave the bill a lukewarm endorsement, saying the bill many supported was "not an option."

She said the real decision was between this "compromise" bill and the one the Senate has passed, which offered even broader surveillance powers and more protection for telecom companies. "That is the comparison, the contrast, that we have to make today."

"I'm not asking anybody to vote for this bill. I just wanted you to know why I was," Pelosi told the House. "Difficult decisions for all of us. ... I respect every point that was expressed on this floor today. ... The knowledge, the sincerity, the passion and intelligence of those who supported and who don't support this bill have been very valuable in making this bill better."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) pointed to a constitutional concern.

"The grant of retro-active immunity is inconsistent with our basic principles. We are breaking with a very proud tradition and intervening in a pending court decision in an effort to reach a preordained legal outcome. This is a bad precedent," he said.

Republicans without exception spoke in favor of the bill, often citing the dangers of terrorism.

"This bill will prove that we have the ability to monitor the conversations of al Qaeda overseas," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) "It's not the Mona Lisa, but it's not a bad paint job."

Rep. Dennis Kucinch (D-OH) spoke briefly. "These blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency."

The House debate about the FISA law is underway. The House has capped debate at just one hour.

So far, the Democrats seem to emphasize that this legislation will not get the Bush Administration off the hook.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said he opposed the bill, but did point to one bright spot in the legislation.

"[The bill] will ask the inspector general to conduct an independent investigation of the president's wiretapping program," Conyers said. "This will uncover the truth for the American people, hopefully, about the president's activity."

Rep. Sylvester Reyes (D-TX), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, also noted that: "This bill does not grant immunity to any government official that might have violated the law."

After everyone had a chance to sift through yesterday's breakthrough "compromise" on a new federal surveillance law, the biggest winer of the day was not Republicans or Democrats but the telecom companies.

Today's Washington Post summarizes the legal impact succicntly in it's front-page story :

The agreement extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while effectively providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom firms. They face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The final compromise on the immunity issue was this: Many Democrats had wanted the federal courts to review whether the surveillance program was legal before granting immunity. The White House wanted the courts to have no involvement whatsoever. The "compromise" calls on the courts to consider the surveillance legal if the companies can prove that the Administration told them it was legal. (Which we know they did).

The Chicago Tribune reports:

The new bill would require federal courts to cast those lawsuits aside if the companies can show that they received written requests from the government stating that their cooperation was deemed lawful and had been authorized by the president.

The House is expected to vote on the measure today. Though billed as a compromise, the final version was viewed as a victory for the White House, according to the Post.

But overall, the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law.

As for the future of the spying program, this new law allows it to grow.

The Wall Street Journal this morning wrote:

The lasting impact of the agreement would be a broader scope for the government's domestic surveillance.

Before 9/11, the NSA had to acquire a specific warrant if it wanted to listen to any conversation involving a U.S. citizen. Now, the secret court would be able to approve broad patterns of surveillance, focused on groups of people believed to be overseas, even if they are communicating with people in the U.S. So without a warrant, the NSA could listen to the conversation of a U.S. citizen if he or she was talking to a suspicious person overseas.

Several Democrats spoke out against the bill, but enough of them agreed to assure this version will pass into law.

Again, from the Journal:

The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn't afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn't overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats -- some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.

Behind the political positioning, however, was the pressure from the telecom firms -- particuarly AT&T and Verizon, which both stepped up their lobbying efforts this spring.

As lawmakers continue to react to the "compromise" deal on a new federal surveillance law, several Democrats in the Senate are coming out against the bill.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has been the most outspoken since the deal was unveiled this morning.

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also said he opposed the House deal.

"This bill would dismiss ongoing cases against the telecommunications carriers that participated in that program without allowing a judicial review of the legality of the program. Therefore, it lacks accountability measures that I believe are crucial.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who has been cool to recent talk about the House deal, appears on the fence, and issued this statement today:

"Senator Reid believes this version is better than the bill the Senate passed in February and much better than the Protect America Act signed by the President last summer, but he remains opposed to retroactive immunity and is reviewing the bill in its entirety."

The Senate passed a bill that provided retroactive immunity to telecom companies earlier this year, so it's unlikely that there will be enough votes to defeat the latest version of immunity.

Clearly the wrangling is over regarding the surveillance compromise. A formal statement went out today that everyone agrees on this matter.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John "Jay" Rockefeller (WV), Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Kit Bond (MO), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD), and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (MO) announced today that a bipartisan compromise has been agreed to that will modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
...
"This bipartisan bill balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans' civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements," said Hoyer. "It is the result of compromise, and like any compromise is not perfect, but I believe it strikes a sound balance. Furthermore, we have ensured that Congress can revisit these issues because the legislation will sunset at the end of 2012."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a copy of the new legislation here.

Read on for the complete text of the Congressional statement.

Read more »

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- After more than a year of partisan acrimony over government surveillance powers, Democratic and Republican leaders have agreed to a bipartisan deal that would be the most sweeping rewrite of spy powers in three decades. The House is likely to vote on the measure Friday, House aides said.

Removing the final barrier to action on the measure, which has been hashed out in recent weeks by senior lawmakers in both parties, House Democratic leaders decided to allow a vote on the bill, despite the opposition of many in their party.

The new agreement broadens the authority to spy on people in the U.S. and provides conditional legal immunity to companies that helped the government eavesdrop after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to congressional aides in both parties.

Late Update: The deal-maker was offering some retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who have already participated in the program.

Critical to sealing the deal was a compromise that would grant conditional immunity to telecommunications companies for assistance they provided from September 2001 through January 2007. If the companies can show a federal district court judge "substantial evidence" they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.

We haven't heard what "conditional" means.

Politico reports that the House Democrats have agreed to vote for it, possibly tomorrow.

Late Update: The Electronic Frontier Foundation says the deal offers broad immunity and says the Democrats caved in to pressure from the telecom industry and the White House.

"Whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity is anything but: the current proposal is the exact same blanket immunity that the Senate passed in February and that the House rejected in March, only with a few new bells and whistles so that political spinsters can claim that it actually provides meaningful court review," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "We call on all members of Congress to reject this sham compromise and maintain the rule of law, rather than deprive the millions of ordinary Americans whose privacy rights were violated of their day in court."

EFF is representing plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit of AT&T customers who claim their records were illegally handed over to the National Security Agency (NSA).