The house is completely defying Bush on the FISA wiretap update proposal.

Instead of immunity, they are putting forward giving, “the federal courts special authorization to hear classified evidence and decide whether the phone companies should be held liable.” Meaning that their answer to Bush’s demand for a coverup is even more judicial overview with regard to spying on Americans.

Word that I’ve read is that the freshman Democrats are very opposed to immunity, and my not so educated guess is that when they went on recess, that the reps got hundreds, if not thousands, of “attaboys” from theid constituents.

The Bush administration hates the bill, and the response for John Conyers and Sylvestre Reyes is brutal:

The Administration, which has refused to even attend negotiation sessions between the House and the Senate, has now apparently launched another round of scare tactics and falsehoods. The American people expect government officials to wrestle with these difficult issues and reach common sense solutions that protect Americans from terrorism and preserve our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the President’s advisors seem more inclined to issue ‘my way or the highway’ press releases concerning a bill the Administration hasn’t even read. The Congress will continue to give this issue the careful consideration it deserves and we hope the Administration will change course and join us in this effort.

I don’t know who put some steel in their spine, but it feels good.

FWIW, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who got bunked by Reid on immunity, likes the House bill too.

So does the EFF.

Earlier I wrote about my senator, Barbara Mikukski, and her voting for telco immunity, and the inadequacy of her response.

I also wrote to Ben Cardin, expressing my appreciation to him for voting against caving to George W. Bush. Major props to him:

Dear Mr. Saroff:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the President’s warrantless wiretapping program.

In February 2008 I voted against final passage of S. 2248, the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act. The bill would have made permanent changes to the original FISA law in addition to many of the changes included in the Protect America Act (PAA). I am disappointed that the Senate has failed to a dequately improve the PAA which Congress enacted in August 2007, and which I also opposed . The PAA was intended to be a temporary solution to FISA, giving Congress the opportunity for a more careful consideration of amending the FISA law.

The President must have the necessary authority to track terrorists, intercept their communications, and disrupt their plots. Congress should make needed changes to FISA to account for changes in technology and rulings from the FISA Court involving purely international communications that pass through telecommunications routes in the United States . While we have a solemn obligation to protect the American people, we must simultaneously uphold the Constitution and protect our civil liberties.

After learning about executive branch abuses in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress passed very specific laws which authorize electronic surveillance. Congress has regularly updated these measures over the years to provide the executive branch the tools it needs to investigate terrorists, while preserving essential oversight mechanisms for the courts and the Congress. FISA requires the government to seek an order or warrant from the FISA Court before conducting electronic surveillance that may involve US persons. The Act also provides for post-surveillance notice to the FISA Court by the Attorney General in an emergency.

I am very concerned that the FISA law was disregarded by the Administration, and want to ensure that we put an end to this type of abuse. We are a nation of laws and no one is above the law, including the President and Attorney General. Congress has the right to know the extent of the warrantless wiretapping program and how it was initiated and changed over the years by this Administration.

I voted in favor of the Judiciary Committee substitute to the Intelligence Committee bill. The Judiciary Committee version strengthened Congressional and judicial review, including increasing the oversight by the FISA Court of the Administration’s wiretapping program. I am therefore very disappointed that the Senate rejected the Judiciary Committee substitute, and that the Senate has rejected numerous amendments – including an amendment that I had offered which would reduce the length of the reauthorization from six to four years – to improve this legislation.

I am hopeful that the House will make much needed improvements in this legislation during conference, and that I can support balanced legislation that gives the intelligence community the tools it needs to track terrorists and prevent attacks, while maintaining safeguards against the abuse of power by the executive branch. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to work to ensure the safety and security of the American people, as well as their civil liberties. Domestic eavesdropping raises serious and fundamental questions regarding the conduct of the war against terrorism, the Constitutional and privacy rights of Americans, and the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Congress must continue to work to strike the right balance, and we did not achieve that goal with this legislation.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please feel free to do so again in the future.

A week or so ago, I sent an email to my Senators regarding the FISA update and Telco immunity.

I congratulated Ben Cardin, and castigated Senator Barbara Mikulski for their votes on telco immunity, which is really all about covering up the misdeeds of the Bush administration.

Here is her response, and my comments, which I’m not sending, because it won’t do any good:

Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your concerns about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I appreciate learning of your views about this important matter.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am very aware that terrorists plan and intend to harm the United States and the American people. I hear about these threats every day – and I take them very seriously. Yet I agree with you – that even as our nation faces new threats, Constitutional protections must be safeguarded.

Which is why she decided to allow the phone companies to Hoover the records of every call in the US and all the internet traffic.

To quote Keith Olbermann:

Mark Klein is the AT&T whistleblower who appeared on this newscast last November, who explained, in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all of AT&T’s circuits — everything carrying every phone call, every e-mail, every bit of web browsing — into a secure room…

…Room Number 641-A, at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco — where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it; not just the international part of it; certainly not just the stuff some truly patriotic and telepathic spy might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything.

Every time you looked at a naked picture, every time you bid on eBay, every time you phoned-in a donation to a Democrat.

“My thought was ‘George Orwell’s 1984,’” Mr. Klein told me, reflecting back, “and here I am, being forced to… connect the Big Brother machine.”

You know, Mr. Bush, if Mr. Klein’s “Big Brother Machine” — the one the Vice President conveniently just confirmed for us — if it was of any damn use at all at actually finding anything, you could probably program it to find out who started that slanderous e-mail about Barack Obama.

Your actions are inexcusable and unforgivable.

The FISA Act was created in 1978 to regulate how electronic surveillance was conducted in the United States . This law needs to be updated to account for changes in communications technology over the last thirty years.

I’ve yet to see any reason for this. What FISA says is, “if you think that there is an issue with foreign communications, you get the tap, but a judge has to approve it within 72 hours.

That’s why I voted for a bipartisan bill that updates a number of problems with the existing law. This new legislation (S. 2248) strengthens national security while protecting civil liberties. The bill also strengthens the role of the FISA Court by requiring greater judicial review and improves oversight and accountability of the entire FISA process. The Senate passed S. 2248 by a vote of 68 – 29 on February 12, 2008. One key provision I fought to include in this bill was a requirement that a warrant must be approved by the FISA Court to monitor a U.S. person anywhere in the world. This new protection means that the Constitution travels with you – even beyond the borders of the United States.

Under FISA, you need a warrant within 72 hours for anyone. How is this “stronger”.

I understand your concerns about providing limited liability protection to telecommunication companies who assisted the government’s efforts to disrupt terrorist plots in the days following the attacks on September 11, 2001. While the Bush Administration wanted full retroactive immunity for these companies and any White House employee or government official involved in the warrantless wiretapping program, S. 2248 provides a more narrow, focused, and limited liability protection . I strongly supported an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have required the FISA Court to determine if liability protection should be afforded to these telecommunications companies. Unfortunately, that amendment failed to get enough votes to become part of the bill.

Your ignorance astonishes me. This program did not start, “the days following the attacks on September 11, 2001”, it started in February, 2001, a full 7 months before the attacks, and it is clear now that the administration used threats of retribution on government contracts, as in the case of Qwest to get compliance.

When the Senate debated this bill, I supported this protection because those companies were acting in good faith under assurances from the President and the Attorney General that what they were being asked to do was legal. You should know that I also support holding accountable those Bush Administration officials who disregarded the law under the President’s secret wiretapping program.

These companies have legal departments. They know the law. And they are already protected when they follow the law. If they were told that a FISA warrant was in process, they would be indemnified.

Your claim that you, “support holding accountable those Bush Administration officials who disregarded the law under the President’s secret wiretapping program”, is a lie.

Whats more, in your capacity as a member of the intelligence committee, YOU are one of those people who allowed him to disregard the law.

I have heard from many Marylanders on this important issue and I appreciate hearing of your concerns. While we may disagree on some parts of this reform, we both share the same goal of strengthening national security while protecting our civil liberties.

No, you are interested in covering your ass, in one of the bluest states in the nation against Republican attack ads. That;s why you, and about 1/3 of the Democratic Senatorial caucus folded like broccoli to George W. Bush, who is less popular than hemorrhoids.

Again, thanks for keeping in touch with me. Please let me know if I may be of assistance to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Just so you know, I will never vote for you in a primary or general ever again, nor will I give to an organization that endorses you.