Congressional Democrats are getting off easy. With attention focused on the presidential campaign, there's been little coverage of their handling of FISA, which has been characterized by short-term extensions to the bill and behind the scenes efforts to gut the program.
The central point of the debate in Congress is whether to provide retroactive immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with U.S. intelligence agencies on surveillance. Carter Wood points to a good explanation from the Senate Intelligence Committee of why it decided to do so--the amendment passed by an overwhelming margin earlier today.
With the Senate now ready to pass a FISA reauthorization that lasts six years, and which is otherwise acceptable to the president, the next question is what the House of Representatives will do. Roll Call reports:
Because the immunity provision will likely remain intact, the House is expected to balk. The House measure does not provide immunity, and, in the eyes of the American Civil Liberties Union, provides better protections than the Senate for Americans who might get caught up in the wiretapping dragnet authorized by both the bills and the current law...
But without the Senate's version of immunity, there are not likely 60 votes in the Senate needed to prevent a filibuster, Republicans said.
It's unclear exactly what happens next. House liberals are unwilling to accept the telecom immunity provision, so the debate is frozen. Never mind that the more than two-thirds of the Senate voted today to protect those companies that had relied on the assurances of the White House and Attorney General (Senator Obama voted against the amendment, while Hillary Clinton missed the vote).
It seems entirely possible that the Democratic leadership will now have to push for yet another 15-day extension of surveillance authority. How long can they kick the can down the road?
