Debate over surveillance powers poised to dominate Senate

January 28, 2008

In about an hour or so, after several starts and stops, the Senate will take up the Bush’s administration’s surveillance bill — inappropriately named the “Protect America Act” — which is set to expire on Feb. 1 (Friday).

Obviously, the looming deadline is hardly conducive to a reasoned debate, and the likelihood of the House and Senate agreeing to a final version before the end of the week is extremely small. Given the circumstances, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supports a 30-day extension of the status quo — the surveillance law that exists will continue to exist for another month, while lawmakers hash out the future. The White House has said it would veto any extension, even though it currently has the powers it wants.

Paul Kiel sets the stage for this afternoon:

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed for cloture, forcing a vote which would end debate, preclude any votes on the amendments, and lead immediately to a vote on the underlying Senate bill — the administration-supported Senate intelligence committee bill, which contains a provision granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms. The Republicans need 60 votes to make that happen.

Now things are at the point where even if the Senate did manage to pass some sort of bill before Thursday, the process of hashing out the differences with the House version (which doesn’t contain retroactive immunity) would drag on past the deadline. Reid has said as much: “The president has to make a decision. He’s either going to extend the law… or there will be no wiretapping.”

Now, it’s important to clarify that last point. If the PAA expires, there’s one thing that Dems, the Bush administration, and intelligence officials all agree on: the surveillance initiated under the “Protect America Act” will continue for another year, and new surveillance can begin under the old FISA law.

In other words, intelligence officials will continue to monitor the communications of suspected bad guys. Of course, to hear far-right lawmakers tell it, Dems are prepared to give al Qaeda the keys to the Pentagon.

TP has collected a series of very annoying examples of Republicans’ dishonest demagoguery.

In his weekly radio address this weekend, Bush ominously threatened that “we cannot afford to wait until after an attack.”

Speaking to NPR today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell bellowed, “The American people should be frightened and remember full well what happened on 9/11.”

In the Washington Times today, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) continues the fearmongering, writing that “Democrats now come perilously close to threatening every American’s safety” if they don’t give President Bush everything he wants. But Smith neglects to mention that it is Bush’s veto threat that actually threatens to let America’s intelligence capabilities lapse.

Moreover, Glenn Greenwald, whose coverage of this has been second to none, describes (among other things) the political environment.

If the Democrats had even the slightest strategic sense and/or courage — just the slightest amount — this is a political confrontation they would be uncontrollably eager to have. Just imagine if they sustain the filibuster today and instead pass a 30-day extension of the PAA, and then Bush vetoes it, knowingly choosing to leave the intelligence community without the ability to Listen In When Osama Is Calling. It would be the height of political stupidity for Democrats to be afraid of that outcome.

That’s what is at stake today as Senate Democrats try to sustain a filibuster against the Republicans’ efforts to force a final vote on the truly pernicious Senate Intelligence Committee bill. Are there any limits at all on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to be bullied and humiliated by Republicans, even by the most transparently disingenuous tactics such as these?

We’ll know more soon enough, but I’d just add that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be in the Senate this afternoon, and both have issued statements expressing opposition to the administration’s bill. Both, in other words, will be there and will vote the way they should.

I’ll update readers when I know more.

So which way is Hillary going to vote?

  • the real question is not how they are going to vote – i would be shocked if either Clinton or Obama voted against the progressives on this one – but rather whether they will do anything else. Will Obama put his transcendent, transformative, Pied Piper oratory to valuable use in a stirring floor speech that changes the tide? Lend it to a filibuster along with Chris Dodd? Will Clinton use her political savvy to help outmaneuver Republicans on procedure or coalition building? Will either of them (or Edwards, for that matter) rally the literally millions of supporters they each have across the country to rise up and flood switchboards and e-mail servers and fax lines in protection of liberties?

    While I remain hopeful, I wont be taking the risk of holding my breath.

  • Thanks Dusty. You’d think with all the campaigning strategy they’re directing at each other that they would see the obvious chance to score points against the pResident on this and come roaring in to show their leadership and passion like Dodd did.

  • (and I forgot a huge one – as Anne keeps pointing out – will they prevail upon those who would support and endorse them, using that precious connection, to encourage and persuade those colleagues like McCaskill and Johnson for Obama, Nelson and Bayh for Clinton, to do the right – er, left – thing?) Now would be a great time for a little show of leadership.

  • Dale: You’d think with all the campaigning strategy they’re directing at each other that they would see the obvious chance to score points against the pResident on this and come roaring in to show their leadership and passion like Dodd did.

    Um, and look what that did for Dodd. I’m not sure either Hilary or Obama want to be the next Dodd.

    Zeitgeist has it right: both candidates will vote as expected, but with a minimum of fuss or speechifying that could be used against them later. This is politics, after all, where you’d be crazy to actually stand up for something meaningful (cf. Dodd).

  • Carpetbagger– I think you must have misheard Reid. I am sure that the appropriate quote would be, “The president has to make a decision. He’s either going to extend the law tell the FBI to actually pay their bill… or there will be no wiretapping.”

    After all, isn’t that the salient point which makes a mockery of every claim of ‘patriotism’ and the necessity of the surveillance?

  • Hillary and Obama both have stated preciously that they stand against telecom amnesty and would support Sen. Dodd’s filibuster. This is a concentrated effort by republicans to try to build Bush’s image as well as their own. It was suggested that Bush’s support would increase in his final year and this is where that effort begins. The “Bush documentary” Fox new aired last night (where Pelle lied by suggesting that we gave Sadam every chance to disarm and he threw the inspectors out when just the opposite occurred, along with a lot more mis information) leads up to the SOTU address tonight where the FISA vote will be heralded as either 1) a great republican accomplishment which was able to overcome democratic opposition as more Americans are coming to see that the war on terror is a constant battle that he and GOP candidates are winning for us or 2) that dems have succeeded in spite of republican efforts, to make America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks where the smoking gun may come in the shape of a mushroom cloud. The Bush disaster is not easily swept under the rug without some major lying and misleading which makes this FISA vote all the more a major political issue. But really it is not. The old FISA law is more than enough to accomplish the surveillance required to help keep America safe yet it will be spun as completely inadequate.

    When will the dems quit listening to republican spin as even relevant much less factual?
    I’ve written Sen McCaskill D-MO several times as I believed her when she claimed to be the progressive candidate when she ran for office and I hope she is able to be that candidate and change her vote to supporting Dodd and not every republican in the senate.

  • “Both, in other words, will be there and will vote they way they should.”

    I am in agreement with zeitgeist that the real question is whether Clinton and Obama will take the time to make the concerted effort to change the views of their respective and declared supporters in the Senate–e.g. Clinton browbeating Bayh and Obama browbeating McCaskill. They can show all of us just how inspiring, diplomatic, effective, forceful, etc. etc. etc. they actually are by twisting a few arms on behalf of the American people. It is an actual and meaningful time to be effective, inspiring, able to get things done–its just our Constitutional rights on the line.

  • ***btw***I had forgotten just how this Protect America Act got passed to begin with. It was raising the terrorist alert level for an attack on the nation’s capital just before congress went on vacation, where to debate or amend it would require they stay in town longer.
    It was pushed by a lobbyist masquerading as a senator…Senator Trent ‘run for your lives the terrorists are going to attack Washington if we don’t pass this bill’ Lott and seconded by Diane ‘my defense contractor husband makes a fortune every day we can keep funding this war’ Feinstein, who by the way can tell you on any given day what flavor gum Trent is chewing. Why was the timing of the bill set to correspond with law maker’s vacation? Because once the bill got passed it would make it very difficult to recall it later. This bill should be the Protect Bush’s Butt Act and the telecoms since it does more to do that than protect America. I’m surprised there is not currently a terrorist alert going off or a major “gut feeling” like last time to get it passed.
    Obama and Clinton need to learn that “NO” is a complete sentence.

  • Are there any limits at all on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to be bullied and humiliated by Republicans…?

    I haven’t seen any. Bush has ZERO credibility and they act like he scares them.

    Jesus we need new leadership, but I fear we won’t get any after the elections. We’ll have the Demobedwetters with a huge majority and a mandate, and they’ll still be running scared of the Republicans.

    Ptui.

  • From what I can hear of the vote, it looks like the normally disappointing Dems are voting “no” on cloture on the Rockefeller bill – McCaskill, and Johnson anyway.

  • In his weekly radio address this weekend, Bush ominously threatened that “we cannot afford to wait until after an attack.”

    Much like Bush did on 9/11

    Now, it’s important to clarify that last point. If the PAA expires, there’s one thing that Dems, the Bush administration, and intelligence officials all agree on: the surveillance initiated under the “Protect America Act” will continue for another year, and new surveillance can begin under the old FISA law. In other words, intelligence officials will continue to monitor the communications of suspected bad guys.

    So why do we need to pass this Act?

  • “it looks like the normally disappointing Dems are voting “no” on cloture…”

    Anne, isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t ‘no’ on cloture mean that debate keeps going?

  • My hopes are sky-high that the Democrats in the Senate will at long last rise to the occasion and finally, for once, do the right thing. Have some of their missing body parts magically appeared? A spine? Cajones?

    Please don’t disappoint us – again.

    Immunity for telecom executives is unconscionable. The best outcome is to let the “Protect America Act” expire for good. If it expires as a result of a Bush veto, that would be icing on the cake.

  • Anne @ 13. I think you’re wrong. Arlen Specter and Jay Rockefeller are saying they will vote for the filibuster (against cloture), according to TPMM. They also say it is not shaping up to be a close vote.

  • Racerx,
    At the rate the republicans are resigning, the dems may be able to get a veto proof majority. And then we’ll watch the dems split into two factions which eventually become two parties because we are so accustomed to outrage we can’t even be civil to each other.

  • I may be confused – nothing the Senate does makes sense. I think what they are voting on is to end cloture on Rockefeller’s bill so they can vote on it. Clinton and Obama voted “no” – as did Feingold and the usual reliable liberals. Landrieu voted “yes” to end cloture, which is in keeping with her normally DINO voting record.

    They will also be voting on the amendment to extend the PAA for another month.

    48 – yeas, 45 nos: not having received the required 3/5 vote, the measure fails. This is a good thing.

  • “Landrieu voted “yes” to end cloture, which is in keeping with her normally DINO voting record.”

    Oh. I thought it was in keeping with her normally shitty, douchebaggy, worthless-as-tits-on-a-bull, big-oil-whore self.

  • The important thing is that the cloture vote failed, and the immunity bill with it. Now they are voting on the 30 day ext, Also a court today ruled a warrant is needed to monitor foreign calls routed through the US.

  • “So much for Clinton and Obama exerting leadership. 48 votes when 60 were needed.”

    Actually, they needed to flip people like mccaskill and bayh in order to get over 41 against, so that debate on the bill–that included teleco immunity–would not advance to the floor for an up or down vote. They were successful–how much it had to do with their efforts is unknown at this time, but just bytheir being there I bet they influenced a couple people. Not we shall see how folks vote on some of the proposed amendments and the 30 day extension…

  • An odd side-note here—neither McCain nor Lieberman voted. I can understand McCain; the man hardly ever shows up for work, and now he can say he didn’t support Bu$h policy while saying that he didn’t vote in favor of handing the keys to the Pentagon to the terrorists. But—wasn’t this one of Joe-mentum’s pet projects in recent weeks?

    Something isn’t clicking here….

  • You dont want Joe Lie on record on a controversial subject if he’s going to be on ticket for Vice President. . .

    • Comments are closed.