House narrowly passes Democratic surveillance bill (no Telecom immunity)

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

Banner headline

from C-Span crawl:

US House passes changes to Senate FISA provision 213-197, removes immunity protection for telecoms

Read more: cnn.com

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Too bad Bush will veto it.

And it doesn't appear they have the votes to override the veto.

[Robbien]

6. That is okay. No FISA bill is the best choice of all.

There is no reason for this bill. The old rules work just fine.

[bluerum]

32. I agree. So what if he vetos it. They just need to stonewall until chimpy slinks out of town.

[Nutmegger]

52. "The old rules work just fine."

I just felt like repeating that. :)

[Gman]

7. That's fine because

there still is no new FISA bill and no telecom immunity.

[santamargarita]

19. This Bill is only about Telecom immunity! They're still spying on us!

Let the stumpy little shit bag veto it!

[Dukkha]

37. it's the effort that matters

Congress is, for once, carrying out the will of the people by stopping unwarranted and unconstitutional spying. Bush vetoing it is a clear defiant act against the American people so the shame will be all his and there's nothing Mr. 19% can do to spin his way out of it.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Wooo-hooo!!

:woohoo:

Keep sending it back, folks!!

NGU.

[Supersedeas]

3. !!!

[rocktivity]

4. This is America. You have the right not to incriminate yourself.

Which is exactly what passing this bill will do to Bush. But the bright side is, we can use it against McCain in November.

:headbang:
rocknation

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. What excellent news!

About time the House showed some backbone!

:woohoo:

[underpants]

8. Good news! but "narrowly" ?

Geesh we can only have .75 of a win I guess

[Ian David]

9. Do we have a roll-call posted yet? n/t

[Ian David]

10. And stop calling it "Immunity," It's "PARDONS." n/t

[ProgressiveFool]

13. I like to call it "Amnesty for telecoms", since that word has become tainted /nt

[hootinholler]

28. Oooh! Good one!

Telcom Amnesty it is!

-Hoot

[Az_lefty]

11. no immunity? Great news. Of course little george will stamp his feet..

and veto it. But fuck him.

[ProgressiveFool]

12. What a crappily written article

All sorts of fearmongering from the Republicans repeated at length, all of them condemning it in the strongest of terms, and all we get to represent our side is Nancy Pelosi saying, "The President is wrong and he knows it"??? That can't possibly be all she had to say about it, but that's what they take as their money quote???

I mean, how about delving a little bit into just why the telecoms might be pursuing immunity, I mean, perhaps because they broke the fucking law on the say-so of the President, making a mockery of our democracy, bill of rights, constitution, etc.?

Would it hurt CNN to look a bit further into the issues instead of framing it as a partisan thing and nothing more?

[Amonester]

49. The answer to "Would it hurt CNN to look a bit further into the issues"

is NO. Only those who work for CNN and who would get fired Right after having done that would hurt (losing their "job" as right-wing propagandist$).

[barbtries]

54. the real issue is not why the telecoms are seeking immunity,

it's why the administration is so adamant that the telecoms must have immunity. it's because if the civil suits are allowed to go forward the government will not be able to hide the extent of their crimes anymore behind a "states secret" non-defense, which is what they use to make all the criminal cases go away.

[peace13]

14. Every time a bell rings a new set of balls are grown!!

Way to go. Finally they are standing up for the American people. Woo hoo, good think chimpy did his speech this morning, he will surely be medicated after this news! Peace, KIm

[tblue]

34. Then, hell, let's start ringin' some bells!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

15. MSNBC.com has an AP link to the story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634920/

[aggiesal]

16. OK, which house dems voted against this? ...

By my count, it's going to be around 20.
We need to get on these DINO's.
If possible, vote them out in Nov.

[barbtries]

55. kucinich was one of them

why? i wonder

[NJSecularist]

17. What was the breaking point?

What made our Democratic leadership in Congress finally grow some balls?

It's about time. :woohoo: :woohoo:

[tpsbmam]

18. Roll call

Dems who voted "nay": Boren, Capuano, Carney, Cooper, Filner, Hinchey, Holden, Kucinich, Lampson, McDermott, Welch (VT), Shuler.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll145.xml

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 145
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 3773 YEA-AND-NAY 14-Mar-2008 2:08 PM
QUESTION: Agree to the Senate Amendment with an Amendment
BILL TITLE: To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purpoes

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
DEMOCRATIC 213 12 1 7
REPUBLICAN 185 13
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 213 197 1 20


---- YEAS 213 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

---- NAYS 197 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 1 ---

Davis, Lincoln

---- NOT VOTING 20 ---

Boustany
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cramer
Everett
Green, Gene
Hooley
Hunter
LaHood
Musgrave
Nunes
Oberstar
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Rangel
Rush
Tancredo
Walsh (NY)
Weller
Woolsey
Young (AK)

[Judi Lynn]

26. Thanks for posting the roll call. Bad news any Democrats voted on the wrong side of this issue. n/t

[Geek_Girl]

35. WOW my repuke congressman actually voted No

nt

[Divine Discontent]

39. heil der fuhrer!

well, that's what all the nays said on the GOP side, at least...

[Oslo]

48. 20 House members didn't even bother to vote n/t.

[tpsbmam]

20. A little from Glenn Greenwald:

Note: His numbers are wrong -- 12 Dems voted "nay."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/14/fisa/print.html

Notably, many of the 21 "Blue Dogs" who previously signed a letter indicating their support for telecom immunity and the Rockefeller bill -- including several of the six whom our highly successful fund-raising campaign earlier this week targeted -- voted (and spoke) in support of the House bill (only 10 Democrats voted against the bill, including at least a couple of progressives who think the bill doesn't go far enough). Many of those Blue Dogs were persuaded to support the bill by the protections which the bill offers to telecoms (i.e., authorizing them to introduce even classified evidence in the lawsuits to prove they complied with the law, if they actually did).

It is possible that the House will ultimately end up capitulating to the President, but I have real doubts about whether that will happen. They have defied the standard GOP Terrorism-exploitation attacks for weeks, allowed the Protect America Act to expire (once the President refused to extend it), and now passed a very good bill even in the midst of intense GOP/media attacks. They did so as a result of a shrewd strategy and a willingness to frame and engage the debate aggressively. My views on the bill, and the unexpectedly commendable behavior of House Democrats, are here, from earlier in the week.

UPDATE: The roll call vote is here. Four of the six Democrats named as fundraising targets voted for the bill (Space, Boswell, Ellsworth and Barrow), while only two voted against (Shuler and Carney). The funds that were raised will be able to be used quite constructively. All Republicans marched in lockstep, as always, voting unanimously against the bill. Only 5 Blue Dogs voted against the Bill; the vast majority voted in favor (5 progressive Democrats voted against as a protest).

One of the 21 Blue Dogs previously expressing support for telecom amnesty -- and who was one of the six targeted by our fundraising campaign -- but who voted for the House bill today was Leonard Boswell of Iowa. Here is what he said when explaining why he voted for the House bill:

Those who feel their civil rights have been violated can seek justice and telecoms who feel they have complied with the law, and a judge can review the classified evidence and decide. This means to me that the Constitution and civil rights are protected and telecoms who are asked under pressure to assist in an emergency can know that classified evidence will be seen by a judge . . . . The bill provides telecom companies a way to present their defense in secure proceedings in a district court without the administration using state secrets to block the defense.
As McJoan notes, a primary challenge he is facing undoubtedly helped move him to the right position.

[hisownpetard]

33. Why did Kucinich not vote for the bill?

[mikelgb]

40. like the poster above said: NO FISA BILL is the best option

[Stardust]

50. Maybe cuz "5 progressive Democrats voted against as a protest."

:shrug:

[OnyxCollie]

51. Dennis doesn't compromise.

Kucinich Opposes FISA Bill That Infringes on Fourth Amendment Rights
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=86082

Similar to his position on SCHIP. Gotta admire his beliefs.

[rambler_american]

21. I just sent an email

to my Representative, Paul Hodes (D, NH) to thank him for his vote. I encourage everyone to do the same.

[tpsbmam]

22. I just called my rep to

give him absolute hell. Asshole voted "nay" and not a Kucinich the bill doesn't go far enough "nay," a vote with the Republicans "nay." What a crock of shit.

[Judi Lynn]

23. Shocking! What on earth was he thinking? I saw Baccus on there, too.

Rangel didn't vote.

Looking forward to see what OTHER Democrats stabbed us all in the back.

The Kucinich vote is a bitter pill to swallow.

[eyepaddle]

24. Was it Glenn Greenwald who pondered a few weeks ago

that the Dems might actually start to crave the sweet taste of dignity and autonomy?

Dare we hope?

[sarcasmo]

25. No Surveillance of American Citizens. This is one of the many crimes against Americans that Silver

Spoon Boy should be tried for. Kick and Rec.

[JBoy]

27. Can someone explain why Kucinich voted "No" on this?

I assume he doesn't support immunity for the Telecoms, so what's his rationale here? I swear, he marches to a drummer I sometimes can't even hear.

[rambler_american]

29. I think

it was because he opposes ANY surveillance of Americans and so is opposed to the FISA bill entirely. I assume he would have voted yay had the outcome been in doubt but that is speculation on my part.

[tpsbmam]

31. I think that's pretty much it. n/t

[tpsbmam]

30. According to Greenwald....

5 progressive Dems voted against the bill as a protest -- I assume Kucinich was one of the 5.

[jeff30997]

44. Yep.He did.

Check post #18. Interesting.

[MrBlueSky]

36. Interesting

According to the House's webpage on this vote, the most liberal member of the lower chamber sided with the Republicans. Rep. James ("Baghdad Jim") McDermott (D-Seattle) cast his vote against the immunity-free bill.

Wonder why?

[ms liberty]

38. See post directly above yours, post # 36...and welcome to DU, MrBlueSky! n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

41. * will veto but that okay because no FISA law is better than what Dimsim wants

[ToughLuck]

42. The vote count by name..anyone a link please

[jeff30997]

45. Check post #18.

[Deep13]

43. ATTENTION WAR-MONGERS AND PARANOID FASCISTS!

[lovuian]

46. Bush is screwed but its pretty obvious that 197 members are

corrupt is hell.

[datadiva]

47. Glad they didn't cave this time

Imagine how stupid *ush is going to look when he vetoes the bill. I can just hear him whining now.

[barbtries]

53. yes!

yes, yes, yes.

i've had a dread feeling in the pit of my stomach all weekend cause of the talk that they were cutting a deal and planning to yet again give in to the administration's dastardly desires. but i've been working so much i could not keep up with the news.

score one for the right to privacy.