The headline says it all: House immunizes telecoms from lawsuits:
The House has approved a compromise eavesdropping bill that, in effect, shields telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for their alleged participation in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks an apparent end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping in the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks. It's an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's need to protect the country by spying on foreign agents and terrorists. The Senate is expected to easily pass the bill as soon as next week — before Congress' Fourth of July vacation.
Walz voted no. In the Minnesota delegation, the DFLers voted no, with the exception of Collin Peterson, who joined all three Republicans in voting yes.
His office has issued a statement on the vote:
Today, Congressman Tim Walz voted against H.R. 6304, legislation which makes changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):
"There are many parts of this bill that I support. It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive means for electronic surveillance, and it strengthens protections for Americans at home and abroad. If this was all that this bill included, I could support it.
"Unfortunately, the bill also contains an unprecedented free pass for the Bush Administration's past actions. It does not allow judicial review of the Administration's use of warrantless wiretaps, and the process it puts in place to review the telecommunications companies' participation in that illegal program has a predetermined outcome -immunity.
"Incredibly, this bill actually says that as long as the telecommunications companies can prove that the Bush Administration told them this action was legal, they can get off scott-free. Today, my colleague Roy Blunt called the process of granting immunity to these telecoms 'a formality.'
"When Richard Nixon said that "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal," many Americans were horrified that any President would consider himself above the law. This legislation is even worse, because it essentially says 'if the President tells you do so something, it's not illegal,' even if it violates the plain letter of the law. The process set out in this bill to rubberstamp the actions of the Bush Administration is contradictory to the rule of law in this country.
"This free pass for the phone companies isn't needed to protect Americans - in fact, it protects only those in the Bush Administration who knowingly broke the law. We can protect our security while protecting our shared values and our freedoms. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that, and I have no choice but to oppose it.
"I have repeatedly said that I could not support a bill that provides a free pass for illegal behavior, no matter who committed it. Our laws matter, and they should be applied equally and fairly to the President, Congress, telecommunications companies, and every other citizen."
Thank you, Congressman Walz.
Not quite a classic Profile in Courage moment, but definitely a recognition that each Congressman has a responsibility to vote based on his own convictions and not what party managers dictate. Such a far cry from the old Gutknecht days when his words did not match his votes once Delay told him what to do.
I especially liked the Richard Nixon quote. When you consider this affair, the AG affair, .... and even Waxman's hearing yesterday on how they spend our dollars, there is no doubt that the Bush Administration has exceeded the Nixon Administration ... but I suppose we should not be surprised as Rumsfeld was a player in the Nixon Administration and Cheney was waiting for Ford to take over.
When I read The Hill story last week of the deal that Steny Hoyer agreed to, I knew it was over --- like when a DA has been forced to accept a plea bargain that he did not want.
Posted by: MinnesotaCentral | June 20, 2008 at 02:36 PM