Letters to the Editor

• I've Seen Nothing Concrete, Glenn, Beyond Reid's Comment

  [Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Re:

  I'm just wondering if there's anything in the procedural arrangements that lend support to this speculation [about Pelosi's intentions]? - G.G.

  My suspicions this time around come from having seen how things unfolded in the House and Senate last August on the PAA (Pelosi and Reid still pretend that they didn't coordinate on the process for final passage of the PAA). So an ominous red flag went up for me when I heard Reid indicate he's been in close consultation with the Speaker on FISA this week. With the House out of session at a conference from Wednesday through Friday (though Pelosi obviously still in close touch with Reid), probably any formal activity, via the House Rules Committee, for example, won't show up until the House is back next week (the whole House not until Wednesday).

  Here's Steny Hoyer late on Tuesday speaking with Rep. Blunt about the prospects for FISA work in the House next week:

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

  The schedule for the week of February 4 is attenuated, to some degree obviously, by the 22 States that have a primary on February 5. Both Democrats and Republicans obviously will be involved in those to one degree or another. Monday and Tuesday the House is not, therefore, in session.

  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday and Friday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business this week...

  [snip]

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

  [snip]

  As a result, we are very frankly in, as you well know as well as anybody, we are waiting on the Senate to pass a bill so that either our bill, we can send that to the President; their bill, send it to conference, or whatever option. But we need them to take some action. We are hopeful they will take some action soon.

  [snip]

  Mr. HOYER. [snip]

  Very frankly, the good news is that the backlog that confronted the court now no longer exists...

  ...So, I think the risk is minimal, because I think the old law, while, yes, they have to go to the court, and very frankly, this is why it was created, to be a check and balance on what might be, and I don't allege that this is happening, but certainly it was a check on arbitrary and capricious action by those in the Government. I happen to think that check and balance is an appropriate one; although, under the statute we passed, we gave broader authority, blanket authority, as you know.

  But we are hopeful, as you are, that the Senate will act, that we be able to go to conference. We need to deal with the immunity issue, which is the difference between the two Houses, although they haven't passed a bill, but the bill that passed out of the Intelligence Committee did give retroactive immunity. That is controversial.

  And we have just got, as I told you, the documentation last Friday that we have been asking for an opportunity to review to determine, A, the justification for the action of the telecom companies and the actions for which immunity is being sought. We think that is appropriate for us to know before we act.

  [snip]

  Mr. HOYER. I would agree with that. I think we solved the technological problem in the bill we passed. Very frankly, the only problem that I think the administration would have with our bill which we passed through the House would be the immunity issue.

  The technological issue I think is addressed by the blanket approval by the court. Although the court has to approve certain objects and processes, it does not, as you know, need to approve specific instances of intercepts or specific targets of intercept.

  So, from that standpoint, I think our bill solved that problem. But our bill has not been enacted so the technological issue of where the communication now goes through a U.S. switch, that is the technological difference now, and then goes back out, that needs to be addressed. It was addressed in our legislation, but the legislation needs to pass.

  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H536&position=all

  I just doublechecked the House Rules Committee website, and there's nothing on there yet about FISA. But as an example of the kind of sudden development that could easily take place next week (as happened with the Protect America Act last summer), here's a House Rules Committee waiver that went through by voice vote Monday, in connection with the economic stimulus package:

  1. Waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee.

  2. Applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of January 29, 2008, providing for consideration of a bill to provide economic stimulus...

  [snip]

  Thus, at this point, pending concrete developments in the House, I think all we can do is to assume that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, and perhaps the members of the House Rules Committee, need to be just as much a focus of our efforts to stop this Rockefeller mayhem as are the fifth-columnist Democrats in the Senate. To that end everyone can help keep an eye next week on the "Recent Actions" listed here:

  Http://www.rules.house.gov/

  If I see or hear more about the process for FISA in the House next week and beyond, I'll make sure I post anything I learn here.

  Permalink Friday, February 1, 2008 03:48 PM