home
No Telecom Immunity In Senate FISA Bill? | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Procedural question.... (none / 0) (#1)
by Edger on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:05:33 PM EST
Greg says:
...aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have confirmed to me that the version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not -- repeat, does not -- contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.

And a source close to Reid says that this is "most likely" the version that the Majority Leader will file a motion to proceed on.

Am I reading this right? The bill is not out of committee yet, and can change in committee before Reid files a motion to proceed? So they have a version that does not contain immunity but there is no confirmation that it is the committee's final version?

That's not how I read this (none / 0) (#2)
by kovie on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:26:32 PM EST
To me, "the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee" means just that, that it was reported out of committee and onto the majority leader's desk, to decide what to do with. So it's not IN committee anymore, although it could end up being sent back to it, I suppose.

Is there some special situation in which a bill can be reported out of committee but still be in committee? That doesn't make any sense to me but then so do many congressional rules (still trying to get my arms aroung motions to recommit and dismiss).

Is there a decent online "Dummies" guide to how all of this works?

[ Parent ]

The this means what? (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:36:16 PM EST
"most likely" the version that the Majority Leader will file a motion to proceed on.

[ Parent ]
I took this to mean (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kovie on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:45:13 PM EST
that the bill that just passed out of the judiciary committee might be sent back to it to be rewritten, passed over and the original intel committee bill considered, sent back to both committees to rewrite in a joint meeting, or some other bill that didn't originate in either committee be considered (I believe that that's possible, even though it's uncommon). Who knows. The real question is why would Reid say this. I have no idea. Maybe he spoke prematurely and without thinking. Maybe there's something more serious going on here. Again, who knows.

All I do know is that a bill that is far better than the intel committee bill was passed out of the judiciary committee, and according to standard senate procedure, should be the one that will be considered on the floor of the senate.

I also find it interesting that all 10 Dems (i.e. Feinstein too) AND Specter voted for it, which tells me that something weird might be going on. Maybe there's something about the way that this was done, or some understanding between Reid and certain senators, that would kill the bill as is before it reached the floor?

If Reid is considering pulling a fast one, then he's going to have a lot of explaining to do. But it's too soon to tell.

[ Parent ]

My mistake (none / 0) (#10)
by kovie on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 07:18:01 PM EST
As it appears that Specter did NOT vote on the final bill, which passed 10-9 on purely party-line votes. See my comment below for more details.

[ Parent ]
Let me help you (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:38:58 PM EST
This means that if doesn't contain what the Pres thinks it should he will veto it and the Demos don't have the votes to over ride.

[ Parent ]
And? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:40:43 PM EST
Then we revert to the old FISA law.

Great result.

[ Parent ]

No Telecom Immunity In Senate FISA Bill? | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft