FISA Vote Proves Republicans Protecting the President -- NOT Us from Terrorists

According to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) "The No. 1 job of the American government is to protect her citizens."

In Bachmann’s Star-Tribune Op-Ed, she accused Speaker Pelosi of failing to move forward legislation. However, when given an opportunity to vote on H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Bachmann voted NO thus she did what she was most concerned about -- she "shirked that most fundamental responsibility -- the safety of the American people."

By now all of us - including Congresswoman Bachmann - have seen the paid television advertisement “Midnight” by Defense of Democracies. As FactCheck delinated, the advertisement took great liberty with the facts … yet the concern is valid …. Why would any responsible Congresswoman not want to approve H.R. 3773 ?

By Bachmann and all the others who voting NO (that would be every member of the Republican delegation) are essentially agreeing that the current FISA legislation is adequate. It truly is not that FISA is lacking, but the desire to award amnesty to the telecoms and protect the Bush Administration.

In the Speaker’s address, Pelosi: FISA Bill Meets Our Responsibility to Protect America While Protecting Our Civil Liberties , she questions the opposition to this legislation : "Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:
"First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in the statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed -- that's one possibility. They simply didn't do it right. Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or third, public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.
"None of these alternatives is attractive, but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.”

Thus, the real question is Executive Power versus Congressional Power and Judicial Review.

The Republican opposition can best be surmised as blind loyalty to President Bush.

And that is the way it is in the Bush Administration.
Tow the line or you’re gone.
Just this week, CENTCOM Commander William Fallon's resignation (dismissed for hubris which amounted to insubordination).
He was not the first … President Bush’s economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster, eight United States attorneys, and the list goes on …

One may think that if you are in the Congress, you would be immune … not so.
The Party enforces discipline through campaign support and committee assignments.
Some members of Congress may not want President Bush to campaign with them, but they sure appreciate the fundraising that he generates.
And the telecoms have sway through lobbying.
Verizon, one of the telecoms who has a great deal of interest in this legislation, has lobbying expenditures of $13,733,000 in 2007.

When the carrot (campaign support) doesn’t work, then the stick is applied. The Club for Growth spent over $600,000 on television and radio advertisements attacking Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) who was defeated in a Republican primary by State Sen. Andrew Harris, who ran a campaign highlighting his conservative bona fides on fiscal and foreign policy issues.
So when the supporters of Defense of Democracies want to run their next set of commercials, what Republican Congresswoman would want to be attacked ?

What Bachmann and her cronies don’t understand is that Bush is on his way out … they need to ask the question, How much executive power do they wish to grant to the next administration ?

To paraphrase Congresswoman Bachmann, the Republicans in Congress are shirking that most fundamental responsibility – to the U.S. Constitution and its inherent Separation of Powers.

FISA Non-Alert : IF FOX doesn’t Report, How can I Decide ?

Confession time – ever since Defense of Democracies started running advertisements educating me that "the law that lets intelligence agencies intercept Al Qaeda communications expire[d]", I have barely left the inner confines of my bunker.

Patiently, I have waited … and then the words I needed to hear … My Friends At Fox were going to get answers.

From today's TV Guide, “Fox News Sunday” leads with the surveillance debate, with interviews with Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

Good. I had to hear if Durbin had changed his tune from his previous statement (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.1035, 02/14/08) “The Law, As It Currently Exists, The FISA Law--Even If We Do Not Change It--Gives Ample Authority To This President To Continue To Monitor The Conversations Of Those Who Endanger The United States.” And Feinstein is a key player since she authored the amendment that states FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance (it failed but is a sticking point and may be revamped in the House bill.)

I tuned in and listened intently to hear FOX defend our liberties and attack these liberal Democrats … but alas, it was just mindless babble about next November’s election … not only from Durbin and Feinstein … but also from Karl Rove.
IF Karl Rove doesn’t feel the threat, what is an ordinary citizen to conclude ?

Was this just an exploitive commercial to attack First District Congressman Tim Walz ?

From Bluestem Prairie, “House Republican attempts to gain political traction against Democrats on the delayed overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act aren't having the impact GOP operatives had hoped for.”

OK … so maybe it was just “political theater” … but the claims must be basically true?
Well, FactCheck.org reviewed the ad and objected stating “false claims and twisted facts in support of this or any other legislation.

So what’s the real reason?
First off, the Senate bill was passed without a majority of Democrats (19 in favor versus 29 opposed, so not exactly overwhelming bi-partisan support.)
Second, it was passed without leaving any time for the House to study it. The House Democrats lead by Michael Arcuri of New York wanted to pass a 21-day extension of the existing legislation. John Kline (R-MN-02) spoke out
“We should be doing nothing short of providing our intelligence officials with every tool necessary to always stay a step ahead of these radical extremists.”
In the end, instead of insuring that the existing “tools” were continued for an additional 21 days, the Republicans voted that down. Arcuri is under attack by the Defense of Democracies Smear Machine.
Too bad .... if the Republicans could have voted this extension, America could still be intercepting ”Al Qaeda communications”.

The dispute is not really about ”Al Qaeda communications”, it’s about amnesty for the telecoms.

Did the Bush Administration do something illegal ?
The Washington Post reported ”disclosures in the lawsuits could clarify the scope of the government's surveillance and establish whether, as the plaintiffs allege, it involved the massive interception of purely domestic communications with the help of the nation's largest providers …”

On February 28th, Durbin said ”I have seen the documentation presented to us in closed session. All I can say about it is, it was extremely limited. There was no legal brief given to the telephone companies saying, this is the authority of the President. It was a very scant document with very little information in it. But this program went on way beyond 2001, 2002. It went on for years. And for years the telephone companies were surrendering this private information about their customers and access to their customers' conversations in a questionable situation under the law.”

That’s the crux of the matter. Amnesty for telecoms.

This week, the House will probably split the Senate bill in to two halves … including one that concerns amnesty for the telecoms … at that time, we will see how John Kline and Tim Walz truly feel.

Congress To-Do List : AMT, Farm Bill, SCHIP, FISA

As Congress returns to Washington, the first order of business needs to be a return to some of the issues that you may have thought were done – AMT, Farm Bill, and SCHIP.

Although these issues were addressed during the first session of the 110th Congress, they still need to be at the top of the To-Do List.

Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Faced with the end of the Income Tax year, Congress and the President extended the AMT patch for 2007, but the issue is still looming for the 2008 tax year. Minnesota can be proud of Betty McCollum, Collin Peterson and Tim Walz for voting fiscally responsibly against this patch. Now is the time for the rest of Congress to agree that pushing the debt out to next generation is fiscally irresponsible.

This problem has been known for decades, but instead of addressing it, Congress has magnified it. Consider Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) comments (March 8, 2001) when the Bush Tax Cuts were being proposed.
“ Roughly one in seven taxpayers will come under the shadow of the Alternative Minimum Tax by the end of the decade… That figure will significantly be higher if President Bush’s tax plan is adopted, and that is according to the Joint Tax Committee of the Congress.”

His words have been proven true.

Let’s not fall for Michelle Bachmann’s Taxpayer Choice Act legislation.

The tax code is riddled with loopholes and subsidies that have no justification other than to appease certain political interests. It’s time to address these.

The Farm Bill
First, let’s acknowledge that although it is called the Farm Bill, it actually is the major authorization for nutrition programs (Food stamps, emergency food assistance program (TEFAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), etc.) and conservation programs.
Second, Bush has firmly stated that he will veto the bill. With all the talk of a recession and stimulus legislation, the pork barrel spending will be the justification that Bush uses when he vetoes the bill. As the House-Senate conference committee meets, they should re-consider some of the amendments that the Senate voted down. Specifically, Sherrod Brown's (D-OH) amendment. Senator Brown discovered that during a time when the USDA paid out $10.5 Billion in aid to farmers, it paid $19 Billion out to the private crop insurance industry to help farmers fill out forms and qualify for federal aid when crops are damaged, for example, by disease, freeze, flood, or drought. Perhaps the worst part of the current law ties the insurance agents’ fees to crop prices, which have recently soared. Additionally, Senator Klobuchar’s amendment should also be given further consideration.

The Farm Bill as presently constituted will not be approved, so it behooves Congress to enact a fiscally more responsible bill before sending it the White House.


State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Unable to override the President’s veto, Congress has passed another temporary funding program which extends the current program until late 2008 or early 2009 depending upon your state. This stopgap measure alludes addressing the uninsured problem. This legislation had bi-partisan support and many states feel the need to serve their citizens, but the Bush White House continues to object.
Take Ohio , where the Republican-controlled General Assembly voted to expand the coverage limit. Currently, states must get at least 95 percent of children in families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level enrolled in the program before eligibility could be expanded. This hurdle is difficult to do as no state currently meets that requirement … so while citizens that would like coverage and the states want to increase participation, the Bush White House is rejecting those requests. Remember the states share in the payment on this program. Ohio will not be the only state affected.

Congress should enact legislation that would establish limited trial programs for states that wish to participate. Thereby, if a state’s Republican-controlled General Assembly wants to serve their citizens better, why should a Republican President say no? If it is limited and temporary, it should be able to withstand a Presidential veto.

Obviously, Bush will use his veto power to influence what Congress passes, but I would encourage Congress to counter that with the passage of a new version of the Protect America Act (PAA) which modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). The current law will expire in February. Since it has been reported that “late-payment of telephone bills resulted in interruptions of the timely delivery of surveillance results shifts the power to Congress to set the tone of the debate.

My message to Congress, address ATM, the Farm Bill, and SCHIP before FISA.