Sen. Harry Reid pulled the FISA bill today saying there were too many amendments to consider before the Christmas recess.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and presidential candidate, spent much of the day attacking the idea of giving immunity to the phone companies, and he took credit for the delay.

“Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy,” Mr. Dodd said in a statement.

“The president should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens,” he said. “I thank all my colleagues who joined me in fighting and winning a stay in the rush to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have violated the privacy rights of millions of Americans.”

The ACLU calls today's action "a clear win for civil libertarians."

“The ACLU wants to thank Senator Dodd and all of the senators who joined the effort to protect civil liberties. Senator Dodd was joined by nine other senators who voted in a midday procedural vote and 15 Senators who signed a letter asking for the Judiciary Committee’s bill to be given preference over the Intelligence Committee’s bill.

The House of Representatives has passed a $516 billion appropriations bill that President Bush has said he will sign -- provided Republicans add on $40 billion for the war in Iraq. (Roll call vote on $31 million for funding the war in Afghanistan is here.)

Received by e-mail tonight from Congresswoman Diana DeGette's office:

The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed the House of Representatives tonight on a vote of 253 to 154 [Amendment #1]. On Amendment #2, regarding funding for Afghanistan and prohibiting any funds from being used for Iraq, the vote was 206 to 201. The bill now goes to the Senate.

It invests in health care access, medical research, education, veterans, energy efficiency, and secures money for the Democratic and Republican conventions, to name just a few.

Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter also sent out an e-mail with praise for passage of the bill's convention security funding.

Wandering through Google News, it looks like a lot of people are labeling this a pork bill. The House Government Appropriations Committee's website where you can view the provisions for yourself is here. The committee's press release on the bill is here (pdf).

On the upcoming Senate consideration and war funding, the article linked above reports:

Update: Consideration of the bill has been postponed to January due to the number of proposed amendments and lack of time to consider them.

Update: Here's the transcript of Dodd's speech.

****

The Senate is debating S. 2248 to overhaul FISA. The bill contains retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.

A vote will begin shortly on whether to accept the bill. Right now they are moving to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

You can watch live on C-Span3.

Update: The Roll Call vote is happening. The room looks more than three-quarters empty. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum requirement is waived. 60 votes are needed to move forward with the bill. Clerk calls roll.

Sen. Leahy is expected to file a substitute bill stripping the telecoms of immunity.

Vote tally: Boxer, Feingold, Cantwell, Brown, Harkin, Wyden, Cardin, Kerry, Menendez and Dodd voted in the negative so far. Leahy and Durbin voted yes, as did Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Specter, Levin and Ken Salazar. Again, this is the motion to invoke cloture to allow the bad Senate Intel Committee bill to proceed.

Vote total: Cloture is invoked. 76 to 10. Motion is agreed to. Harry Reid: No one intends to talk for 30 hours but some want to talk post-cloture. Reid wants everything from now on to take 60 votes, except for final passage. The rules don't require it, but they do take 60 votes to stop a filibuster. They are arguing about that now.

More...

Bottom line: The Senate must reject the Senate Intelligence Committee bill's with provisions for telecom immunity. It must insist that any bill passed carries protections for Americans against wiretapping that comport with the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU says:

This week the Senate will consider making vast changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will determine whether telecommunications companies should be held liable for their role in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.

...."When the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 comes to the Senate floor this week, Congress has a duty and an opportunity to protect the Fourth Amendment and rein in the executive's spying power.

More...

As someone with a parent in a nursing home, I am very glad to learn that Hillary Clinton and Tom Harkin (D-IA) have introduced a bill "that would force a federal agency to make public its list of the nation's worst nursing homes."

The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has compiled a list of 128 nursing homes that have repeatedly fallen in and out of compliance with government health and safety regulations and caused harm to their residents. Those so-called "special-focus facilities" are now subject to more frequent government inspections.

Two weeks ago, the agency released an abbreviated, public version of the list that identified only 52 of the facilities. The agency refused to release the full list of 128 homes, even though it had already provided the full list to nursing home association lobbyists at the American Health Care Association.

The lobbying group that got the full list is the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care. [More...]

The FISA legislation debate now set for Monday is pretty confusing as to which bills are on tap for debate and a vote. If I understand correctly, from Sen. Harry Reid's statement, one reason is that he changed course Friday.

The Senate Intelligence Committee bill, S. 2440, had three provisions, one of which included retroactive telecom immunity.

The Senate Judiciary Committee bill, S. 2441, had no immunity but more stringent wiretapping safeguards.

Reid initially said he'd take up two of the three titles of the Intel bill, omitting the one providing for telecom immunity. Now he says the entire Intel Committee bill, including the immunity provision, will be the "base bill" up for consideration. Here's what he said as to why he changed course. [More...]

Update here.

Update: Harry Reid says debate on the bills will begin Monday.

There will be a vote on FISA today. The Senate will consider the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill, S.2440, minus its provision calling for telecom immunity, and S. 2441, the Senate Judiciary Committee's bill, which has no immunity provision, but is somewhat better on wiretapping. The ACLU says,

"Another way to think of it: S 2440 is good on immunity and bad on wiretapping while S. 2441 is bad on immunity but good on wiretapping. It looks as though Senator Reid has created two little FISA Frankensteins."

[Edit: I assume the ACLU means the two provisions of S 2440 that will be taken up. It does have another provision calling for immunity. Reid's statement later today indicates he's changed his mind and will now have the Senate consider the entire House Intel bill, including the provision with immunity.]

The ACLU is asking Senators to participate in the Dodd Filibuster and prevent the passage of any bill that includes immunity.

"Senator Reid is forcing senators to trade the Fourth Amendment to avoid immunity or to give immunity in order to protect Fourth Amendment rights. The ACLU, on behalf its members across this country, asks that he bring the Judiciary Committee’s FISA bill to the floor -- without immunity for companies that broke the law," said Fredrickson.

If nothing gets passed, or if Bush vetos a new bill, it's not the end of the world. The Protect America Act, hastily passed before Congress recessed in August, has a 180 day expiration date, which is February. Then again, the Patriot Act had sunsets and look what happened there.

We don't need another end-run around the Fourth Amendment. [more....]

Sen. Edward Kennedy released a statement today praising the Sentencing Commission's retraoctivity decision regarding the minor reductions in crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. He also urges passage of S. 1685 which he co-sponsored with Diane Feinstein, Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch (that ought to tell you right there it's not a good bill.)

The bill insufficiently cuts the disparity between crack and powder. Instead of 5 grams of crack, the threshold for the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence would be 25 grams. For powder, it's currently 500 grams.

Instead of 50 grams of crack, the bill makes the threshold for the 10 year mandatory minimum sentence 250 grams. The threshold for powder is currently 5 kilograms (5,000 grams.)

The bill does eliminate the mandatory minimum for first timers who possess for personal use.

Joe Biden's bill, S. 1711, co-sponsored by John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Carl Levin is better. It equalizes the penalties between crack and powder at the current powder levels. But, the reductions are not retroactive, so they won't help the 19,500 offenders currently serving the disparate sentences.

And, as usual, Biden can't leave well enough alone. He has to go and increase funding for the war on drugs. [More....]

Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday introduced a new bill on FISA substitution-- S. 2402, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Substition Act (pdf).

He also made this statement (pdf) about the bill yesterday which appears in the Congressional record.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Substitution Act of 2007, to substitute the Federal Government for the telephone companies in litigation challenging the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. ....

.... The legislation substitutes the U.S. in place of any electronic communication service company which provided communications in connection with an intelligence activity that was authorized by the President between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007, and designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack against the U.S.

....If the provider assisted the Government beyond what was requested in writing, this legislation will leave the provider on the hook for any surplus assistance. On the other hand, the Government will be substituted if the Attorney General certifies that the electronic communications service provider did only what the Government asked. Once substitution occurs, Federal and State courts are directed to dismiss the providers from the action.

The bill may be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Unfortunately, it does not have a state secrets fix.

For lots more on the FISA bills currently under consideration this week, the ACLU provides great information.

Action Alert: Contact your Senators today and urge them to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. As I wrote a month ago, it's a thought crimes bill aimed at preventing domestic terrorism by judging the thoughts, including those expressed on the Internet, of American citizens.

From the National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers:

On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by a vote of 404-6. The bill will be referred out of committee this week and will then go to the Senate floor. The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.

This bill would establish a Commission to study and report on "facts and causes" of "violent radicalism" and "extremist belief systems." It defines "violent radicalism" as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." The term "extremist belief system" is not defined; it could refer to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, etc.

More....

So sez Greg Sargent:

. . . Here's a bit more detail on what happened on the Judiciary Committee today. Sources say Senator Russ Feingold offered an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the bill, but it was defeated. Then Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking GOPer on the committee, offered a "compromise" amendment saying that in these lawsuits the Federal government, and not the telecoms, would be the defendants. But because of a procedural difficulty Specter's amendment wasn't voted on -- and Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the committee, essentially went around Specter's amendment and moved to have a vote to report the bill out of committee without any telecom immunity in it. That passed along strictly party lines. And that's where we are.

Let's see the bill first Greg. If Leahy was able to get this done, then HURRAH for Leahy! Personally, I am not understanding this story at all. If Feingold's attempt to REMOVE telecom immunity failed, then what exactly did Leahy get out of Committee? If the bill did NOT contain telecom immunity, then why did Feingold move to have it striked? Sorry Greg, too many holes in the story as reported to make any sense.

Rachel Perrone of the ACLU sends this Novemebr 1, 2007 letter from Brandon Mayfield to Sen Russ Feingold on FISA. The highlights:

I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who support it, but it is anything but balanced. The balance between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier, apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect balance between criminal investigation and respect for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No search or arrest should be made without a warrant, and no warrant should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. Further the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person to be seized. . . .

Full text in extended.