Skip to main content

Through a glass darkly

[Yes, that is a Samuel Adams glass, which I deliberately used as a metaphor]


I can't drop this.

The Democratic Leadership wanted -- needed -- the Spying on Americans Bill to pass. They actively worked and maneuvered it through the process. The Senate Majority Leader schedules which bills are voted on and when; the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader and the Whip, marshal bills through their half of Congress; there is absolutely no way that they can claim ignorance, to do so would be disingenuous and duplicitous.

They think we don't watch what they do ... but they're wrong. This is how they did it

    The Senate-passed version (Republican) of FISA (and no other) was allowed onto the House floor on Saturdayby the House leadership,

But it wasn't just the leadership

    ... and by every single Member who knew it was about to be offered but didn't object, via a unanimous consent agreement propounded by Steny Hoyer:

      Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent

      (1) that the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3311; and

      (2) that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 4, 2007, to consider S. 1927 in the House under the following terms:

Read what comes next

      All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI;

That does not sound good. Where's the democracy?

      The bill shall be considered as read;

      The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to its final passage without intervening motion except: (a) 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on the Judiciary and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (b) one motion to recommit; and

Are they sneaking something in here, because they think no one's watching?

      (3) that it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 4, 2007, for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;

Back to the burning up the Constitution bill

      [snip]

      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

    There was no objection.

    Steny Hoyer the day before, during the debate on the Democratic FISA bill (H.R. 3356):

      I want to comment first on the involvement of Mr. Reyes, Mr. Conyers, myself, the Speaker, and others. I have met on at least three occasions with my friend, Mr. Blunt. Every time we made a draft, I took it to him and discussed it with him. This was not something that I thought ought to be done on a partisan basis.

      I talked to the Director of National Intelligence on at least five different occasions individually and then in a conference call with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Levin, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Reid, the Speaker and myself. We talked over a number of hours. The conversation did not last hours. From time to time, we hung up and the DNI went to contact people.

      Mr. Speaker, we have spent a substantial amount of time trying to reach what our Founding Fathers wanted us to reach, and that was a balance of power, a balance of making sure that our country was secure and making sure that our individuals were secure. That's what our Founding Fathers were all about. They didn't want King George knocking on the door and coming in just because he wanted to come in. They thought that King George needed to be restrained. - Rep. Steny Hoyer, 8/3/07

    I note again that Harry Reid apparently understood exactly what would go down in the House on Saturday, or decided to force the House's hand to follow the Senate lead, when he adjourned the Senate for the month Friday night. It is also clear from comments during the extremely limited, and sudden, FISA debate in the Senate Friday evening (30 minutes per side) that Harry Reid had no interest in keeping the Senate in session on Saturday or Monday to finish ironing out differences.

    Arlen Specter and Carl Levin were discussing possible wording changes in the halls during the debate, Feinstein had yet to understand the Democratic version, and misunderstood Feingold's objections, DNI McConnell was in the halls twisting arms, and Harry Reid couldn't wait to gavel everything to a close, because he knew full well he had the 60 votes to pass McConnell/Bond.

    The 60-vote Senate threshold rigged the vote: no way were the Democrats going to get 10 Republicans to split off for Rockefeller/Levin, but the Republicans sure got 16 Democrats to split off for McConnell/Bond. Reid didn't even come close to allowing enough time for those opposed to this unConstitutional rush-hack-job to coherently make their case against it (while the entire Senate stood idle from 11:30 a.m. until 8 p.m., in recess). Jim Webb did a GIGANTIC favor for Mr. Reid, using his credibility to cover for Reid's duplicity. Yet still, no objection was heard from a single member in the Senate either, if only on principle

    P.S. There was no risk of a 218-vote discharge petition from the Blue Dogs siding with Republicans overruling Pelosi, if she had chosen to stand with us and our Constitution, by forcing the Senate FISA bill to the floor: that Senate bill hadn't yet been referred to a House committee from which it could be discharged, and in addition, there wasn't time left in the session to force it to the floor (without a 2/3rds or unanimous vote), as I understand the rules, even if it had been ripe for discharging in that manner.

Not enough for you?

Matt Stoller was in contact with the National ACLU office and they told him their version of how the Democratic Leadership purposely kept them in the dark.

    We met with Pelosi and with Reid -- we spoke with the staff from every leadership office. They did not listen to us. It was dem leadership who scheduled the vote on these particular bills. Why be mad at us and not at them? We met with them. They rebuffed our arguments.

    We weren't notified that the bill was moving until 6 days before when Rep. Harman let it slip on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. We gave it the full court press: with action alerts, meetings with Members of Congress and Senators and their staff.

    Pelosi and friends spent the entire week negotiating with the DNI and cut out ALL the civil liberties groups - not just the ACLU. Senator Rockefeller led the effort on the Senate side (with McConnell). The bill only passed because a) 41 dems crossed the line in the house, after the "liberal leadership" could NOT muster up its own party to assert its 30 seat majority, and b) most importantly, Pelosi, our "liberal leader" scheduled the bill in the first place. She could have put any bill on the schedule and she chose the Administration's.

The Democratic Leadership has wanted this legislation for over ten years, check it out

They got the vote that they wanted.