Looks like the GOP parlimentary maneuver worked: According to House Dem leadership aides, the leadership has postponed the vote on the FISA bill until next week.

As noted below, GOP Rep. Eric Cantor came up with a clever way of throwing a wrench into the FISA bill, which was scheduled to be voted on today and which is opposed by Republicans.

He threatened this afternoon to submit an amendment that would have mandated that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person."

Though this language has no real legislative meaning, it nonetheless was effective in forcing Dems to yank the bill. That's because he introduced this in such a way that would have procedurally forced the bill to go back to committee and delayed it for an untold amount of time.

That left House Dem leaders scrambling today to figure out how to respond. And so, instead of letting this measure effectively scuttle the legislation, they decided to postpone the vote until next week in order to regroup and figure out how to proceed. "This legislative maneuvering by Republicans was a cynical attempt by Republicans to kill the bill," a senior House Dem aide griped to Election Central.

As I predicted, House Republicans are already spinning this yanking of the bill as proof that Dems don't want to protect America -- even though the Dems' real objection was to the fact that the procedural measure would basically have killed the legislation.

As GOP Rep. Cantor, the author of this maneuver, crowed on his web site: "They are so desperately against allowing our intelligence agencies to fight OBL and AQ, that they pulled the entire bill to prevent a vote."

Late Update: It looks like the GOP maneuver may have been even trickier than it first appeared.

Late Late Update: Dem House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has just put out the following statement:

“Once again, House Republicans have chosen to engage in politics rather than substantively address the challenges that face the American people.

“Once again, they have offered an amendment that, if passed, would have substantially delayed this important legislation – which is designed to protect the American people – by proposing language already provided in the bill.

“We have every intention of completing consideration of this critical legislation and fulfilling our twin objectives – protecting the American people and protecting their civil liberties.”

Today the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on its FISA legislation. Members have been speaking on the floor throughout the day, and the vote was supposed to happen around now.

But it looks as if Republicans, who oppose the current FISA measure, may have come up with a way of trying to scuttle the bill.

GOP Rep. Eric Cantor has just revealed on his Web site that he's planning on introducing the following add-on measure to the bill later today:

Today, we will be offering an amendment to the legislation to clarify that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person."

Cantor is presenting this as an effort to determine whether Dems really want to protect America or not. "Let’s put all Members of Congress on the record," he writes in a post accompaning the amendment. "Which do they care more about, pleasing their MoveOn.org liberal base or making sure America is safe and secure?"

But as you can see, this measure, with its incredibly broad language, would appear to be legally meaningless. It effectively says that the intelligence community is free to do whatever surveillance it wants, provided it can be justified as needed to prevent a terror attack in some fashion or other. It doesn't appear to be serious legislative language, just a procedural maneuver designed to throw a wrench into the works.

The word from House Dem aides is that Cantor intends to introduce this as part of a motion to recommit "promptly," rather than "forthwith." Stripping away the mumbo-jumbo, our best understanding of this so far is that it would send the bill back to committee, rather than out on to the floor for a vote. This would bottle up the bill and delay the process an untold amount of time.

Dems are likely to object to the prospect of this delay -- and not the language itself, as it has no legal meaning -- though Republicans clearly plan to spin any Dem objection to this as Dems not wanting to protect America.

It's unclear as yet how the House Dem leadership will respond. Cantor says on his blog that "House Democrats are holding the FISA bill off the floor, scrambling to figure out how to respond." House Dem aides say no decision has been made by leadership whether to yank the bill in response or whether to pursue another course.

More soon.

A new poll finds that Dems have a very strong wind at their backs as they head into tomorrow's House vote to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion bill.

The new CNN survey finds that a strong majority (61%) want the House to override Bush's veto, while barely a third (35%) do not. Key number: Forty-three percent of conservatives back the override, too.

One other key fact: The poll was taken Oct.12-14, when the winger campaign against the program was in full swing. Judging by these numbers, those efforts have failed pretty miserably.

As Spencer Ackerman just reported over at TPMmuckraker, Michael Mukasey just compared U.S. torture to the Holocaust at his confirmation hearing a few moments ago.

In light of this, we thought it would be interesting to recall another similar episode. Remember when Dem Senator Dick Durbin compared American torture to the Soviet gulags and to Nazi activities back in 2005? At the time, he said:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

An enormous firestorm ensued, with Republican after Republican denouncing him. And Durbin was forced to deliver a tearful apology on the Senate floor. What will happen this time?

Seems worth recalling.

I've just learned that nearly 90 members of the House of Representatives have now added their names to a letter to the President pledging not to vote for any more funding for the war and only to vote for supplementals that fully fund withdrawal and nothing else.

Back in July, 70 House members signed a similar letter vowing to only fund withdrawal. At the time, The Politico deemed this a "big development," adding: "This may be the beginning of the end for the Iraq War."

Now more than 15 new members have added their names to the letter, bringing the total to 87, another significant step forward.

I obtained a copy of letter and the list of signers -- which will officially be released and sent next week -- from a House aide. Here's the key quote from the letter, which is still being circulated among Dems for more signatures:

Dear Mr. President:

Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.

That nearly 90 members are now saying they won't vote for any funding save for redeployment is significant because it means that more than a third of the House Dem caucus is effectively saying they will no longer vote to fund the war, no matter what. Though this doesn't necessarily mean the House Dem leadership won't be able to get some sort of war funding passed, the leadership will have to reckon with this big block of No votes when figuring out its response to Bush's request for war funding.

"We've finally crossed the threshold of getting one-third of the Dem caucus to fund only redeployment and nothing else," says one aide to a House liberal. "That's a third of the Democratic caucus supporting the use of Congress' appropriations power to take the war reins away from the President."

The full letter and full list of signers are after the jump.

Read more »

Things are in flux tonight behind the scenes as House Dems struggle to decide whether to support the FISA legislation that two House committees unveiled today. So here's what we're able to gather about the state of play right now.

The entire House leadership is supporting the bill, confirms Stacey Bernards, a spokesperson for House Dem leader Steny Hoyer. But where are the House liberals? They are the key group to watch, because their mini-revolt against the legislation last week was taken as a sign that there would be heavy pressure on the House leadership not to capitulate by giving the administration too much power over wiretapping.

So where are they? According to House Dem aides, House liberals appear to be leaning in the direction of supporting the legislation -- though nothing is at all certain. Earlier today, an aide says, an internal count of House members showed very strong opposition among liberals to the bill unveiled today. But later in the day, some liberals appeared to be privately concluding that many of their demands -- which they unveiled amid last week's revolt in hopes of influencing the process -- had been met, this aide says.

Read more »

You can read the full text of the House Dems' FISA legislation right here in our TPM Document Collection.

We're awaiting reaction from House progressives on this. We're told there may not be any reaction until tomorrow, as staffers are currently digesting the bill's contents. At any rate, you've got the full bill now, in case you feel like doing a bit of digesting yourselves. Enjoy.

Here it is: A summary of the specifics of the controversial FISA bill. It was just released by House Dems moments ago.

The gist of the compromise legislation, as Dems are billing it, is that the bill would allow so-called "umbrella" warrants from the FISA Court for bundles of oversees communications, as this morning's Times put it. That year-long umbrella would extend to communications into and out of the United States, and clarifies that foreign to foreign calls or communications don't need a warrant.

In return the Dems are getting more transparency than they had in the earlier, more controversial version of the bill, which passed this summer to the dismay of civil libertarians. There will be quadrennial audits of the program, and restores "review" of the agency's targeting by the FISA court, though it's unclear as yet exactly what this will mean in practice.

Check out the House Dems' full summary of the bill after the jump.

Read more »

This is interesting: Jane Hamsher brings word that bloggers are bringing their activism on the battle over SCHIP to a new level. This morning Blue America joined up with BlogPac to fund robo-calls into the districts of five Democratic members of the House who voted against the kids' health care bill.

The five are: Jim Marshall (GA), Baron Hill (IN), Gene Taylor (MS), Bob Etheridge (NC), and Mike McIntyre (NC).

The idea here is to supplement efforts by the DCCC, who are putting pressure on Republicans in moderate districts to vote for the measure. The blog campaign is focused on conservative Dems who continue to hold out against SCHIP -- people whom the DCCC would obviously not be targeting.

You can listen to the robocalls, which Hamsher says were recorded by Michelle James, a full time working mother who can’t afford health care for her son who has bronchitis, right here.

Amid signs that progressives in the House are worried about the direction being taken by the House Dem leadership on controversial new FISA legislation, Dems have postponed the release of the bill out of committee until next week.

The postponement is kind of a big deal, because many were anxiously anticipating the release of the legislation, which promises to be one of the most contentious issues on Capitol Hill in coming days.

The postponement -- first reported by The Huffington Post -- was confirmed to me by Stacey Bernards, the press secretary to Dem House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. He was scheduled to unveil the bill -- a product of the judiciary and intelligence committees -- this afternoon, but now it looks like it won't be unveiled until next week. "The bill's not ready," Bernards tells us.

The FISA legislation promises to be a contentious issue, because many progressives and Democrats were unhappy with the version of the legislation that was passed in August, altering the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, because they saw it as granting far too much power to the administration and far too little in the way of civil liberties protections.

Now that the legislation is up for renewal, many progressives in the House are going to demand that the bill be much tougher this time.

Read more »

Internal tensions erupted yesterday among House Dem leaders over Rep. David Obey's threat to block war funding without withdrawal timetables and his suggestion of a war tax, The Hill reports.

As we reported here yesterday, Obey yesterday dropped a surprise at a press conference, saying that he would use his power as Appropriations Committee chair to block any war funding that wasn't tied to a date-certain goal for withdrawal and to a measure to provide troops with more rest time. Obey also suggested a war surtax to pay for the Iraq conflict.

Today, though, The Hill reports that some House leaders are cool to the war tax idea, adding some in the leadership were angry with Obey's timing. They said Obey screwed up by pushing forward an idea where there's disagreement on a day when Dems were looking to score a big political hit on Bush over his veto of SCHIP, the kids' health care proposal.

“It’s hard to believe you could pick a worse time to do something to divide the caucus than the day Democrats and Republicans come together on both an Iraq bill and in sending the children’s health bill to the president,” a Democratic leadership aide told the paper. “The timing of this announcement made no sense.”

I'm told, however, that there's a bit more to these tensions than meet the eye. House insiders say they think that this anonymous dumping on Obey came from the office of House Dem leader Steny Hoyer.

Hoyer is a big proponent of the new House Iraq bill being sponsored by Dem Rep. Neil Abercrombie that was voted on yesterday and passed overwhelmingly. Because this measure lacks a binding withdrawal timetable, others in leadership -- like Pelosi -- are cool to the idea, insiders point out. Hoyer cared more about Abercrombie than the other leaders did, leading his office to get irked by Obey's distraction.

"The dumping on Obey likely came from Hoyer, who was much more enthusiastic about the moderate -- read: toothless -- Abercrombie legislation than the rest of leadership is," a House insider tells me.

In other words, the fault lines here are at bottom over Iraq -- Hoyer likes Abercrombie more than the rest of leadership, and is also less inclined than the rest of leadership to pursue a funding fight of the sort favored by Obey. "Hoyer genuinely thought Abercrombie was a good thing and Obey distracted from it, plus Hoyer is scared of funding fight," the House insider said.

Late Update: Hoyer's office adamantly denies that it was the source of the criticism of Obey. "This is categorically false and the person making this statement has no idea what he or she is talking about," Hoyer spokesperson Stacey Bernards told me.

Just to clarify, the House insider quoted above was speculating that he/she thought that Hoyer's office was the logical source of the criticism based on his/her reading of the internal dynamics at play in the House. The insider conceded that he/she had no direct knowledge that this had happened, nor did he/she say she did.

Last Friday we reported that Dem Rep. Mark Udall was planning on introducing a resolution in the House this week condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" crack.

Late yesterday, Udall finally introduced the resolution. In a statement, Udall took care to emphasize that his measure shouldn't be seen as tit for tat retribution for the House reso condeming MoveOn:

Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal may be.

It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief.

It's unclear whether this will come to a vote; House sources, however, say there's growing interest in the measure and that things are trending towards the affirmative. Udall's full statement after the jump. We'll bring you the text of the reso as soon as we have it.

Read more »

This is kind of big: Dem Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, just said at a presser that he'll use his power as committee chair to block future war funding measures if they don't contain clear timetables for withdrawal from Iraq and don't allow for longer troop rest times.

Obey, in a reference to the $190 billion war supplemental requested by President Bush, said the following, according to a transcript provided by the committee:

“I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.

-- "Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009."

-- "Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments."

-- "Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region."

“But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.

“As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."

While Obey's insistence that the war funding measure "establish as a goal" withdrawal by January 2009 would appear to be nonbinding, this is nonetheless a significant step. That's because Obey is threatening to block funding for the war lest funding be directly tied both to a clear date-certain goal for withdrawal and to Webb's troop rest measures. Also, Obey has the power to follow through on this threat.

The new funding is not needed for several months, but nonetheless, this suggests a newfound willingness on his part to use control over funding to force actual policy changes, particularly on the Webb piece. It's a drawing-line-in-the-sand kind of moment. Obey's full statement after the jump.

Read more »

Dramatically escalating the Dems' confrontation with Rush Limbaugh over his "phony soldiers" comment, Harry Reid just laced sharply into the talk show host in an extended attack on the Senate floor, hammering Rush's comments as "unpatriotic" and demanding he apologize to the troops.

"His unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored," Reid said. "During his show last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This rant was unremarkable and indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years -- until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq `phony soldiers.' This comment was so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone."

In an interesting bit of political theater designed to put GOP Senators on the spot, Reid said he's leaving on the Senate floor a letter his office wrote to the head of the parent company of Rush's radio show denouncing Rush's remarks. Reid challenged GOP Senators to sign the letter, saying that he's leaving the letter on the Senate floor for the rest of today.

The move is, in a sense, a stand in for another possible move: The introduction of a Senate resolution condemning the remarks in a fashion similar to the one that attacked MoveOn the other week. A new resolution could spark charges that Reid is indulging in tit-for-tat and indeed goes counter to a feeling among some in the leadership that it isn't Congress' job to introduce resolutions condemning private citizens.

By leaving the letter on the floor and challenging GOPers to sign it, Reid is signaling that he's playing political hardball in return, and taking active steps to put them in a politically difficult position, without taking the step of introducing a resolution.

"I am confident we will see Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers," Reid continued. "I ask my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriotic attack – by calling upon Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve."

Amping up the fight even further, Reid took direct aim at Rush for skipping military service when he was a young man. "He never served in uniform," Reid said. "He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in civil war. Yet he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who are on the frontlines."

Full transcript of his remarks after the jump; video soon.

Late Update: Here's the video:

Read more »

As we reported earlier today over at The Horse's Mouth, Democrats and others have been pressuring the White House press corps to ask White House flack Dana Perino if President Bush -- who'd earlier condemned MoveOn -- would repudiate Rush Limbaugh's assertion that troops who want to withdraw from Iraq are "phony soldiers."

At the press briefing a few moments ago, a reporter did ask Perino the question. In response, she faulted Rush for the remark. She claimed that while she hadn't personally heard the remarks (she said), the President doesn't agree with the underlying sentiment and wouldn't have used those words. Take a look:

Perino said: "The President believes that if you are serving in the military that you have the rights that every American has which is you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are some that oppose the war, and that's okay."

Pressed specifically about Rush's "phony soldiers" phrase, she added: "It's not what the President would have used, no."

Hardly the scathing condemnation that MoveOn earned at the hands of the President of course. But this is still noteworthy, particularly since Bush and top Republicans are guests on his show. Despite Perino's contention that she hadn't heard the comment, the practiced answer that followed suggests that the White House made an internal decision to criticize the comment.

We have more ongoing coverage of this over at The Horse's Mouth.

It's health care, stupid.

With a House vote on expanding S-Chip set for this afternoon, a new poll out from the Dem firm Democracy Corps (no link yet) concludes that the battle over the children's health care program is shaping up as a very costly one for Republicans, one that could very well resonate in 2008 as voter concerns about health care soar:

Health care can emerge as the central economic battle of the 2008 election cycle. That is reflected in more and more people choosing health care as the top problem overall making it the top domestic concern. Voters concerns with health care remain primarily in the rising costs as well as in being sure they will always have access to quality care.

The battle over children’s health care, S-CHIP, has the chance to crystallize this issue to the great disadvantage of President Bush and the Republicans. Voters reject the President’s veto threat by almost two-to-one, preferring the expansion of insurance.

The poll finds that voters side with Dems on the issue by 60%-35%; that independents want the program expanded by a 34-point margin, 62%-28%; and that voters in Republican-held districts also overwhelmingly favor the expansion, 55%-39%.

Fueling these numbers, the poll finds, is an explosion in voter concern about the health care issue in general. In another ominous 2008 sign for the GOP, the survey says that the percentage of voters who see rising health care costs as a "very serious problem" has increased an astonishing 12 points in only the last two years. We'll bring you the full poll when it's on line.

Late Update: The full poll is here.

"That 60-vote barrier is the gate around the President’s desk."

-- Nancy Pelosi, in a rare foray into criticism of Senate rules, arguing that the primary function of the GOP filibusters is to protect the President from having to veto Iraq withdrawal measures that are popular with the public. It certainly is working out that way, isn't it.

MoveOn chief Eli Pariser hammers back at today's Senate vote condemning his group with this statement:

"No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want -- vote to end this war."

Hard to argue with, really. What we're really hoping to see soon is some polling on the question of the importance the American public accords the Ad Heard Round The World.

The GOP-introduced resolution condemning MoveOn just passed by a huge margin, 72-25. Roughly half the Democrats in the Senate supported it.

A couple of the more interesting votes: Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this.

Meanwhile, Hillary -- who's been under assault by Rudy for refusing to condemn MoveOn but who's also locked in a tough Dem primary -- stood her ground and voted No.

We'll have a list of Dems who backed this thing and Dems who voted against it in a bit. Stay tuned.

Late Update: A full list of all the Dem Senators who voted to condemn MoveOn is after the jump.

Later Update: More developments. Barack Obama missed today's vote on MoveOn -- even though he'd been present in the Senate earlier to vote on the Boxer measure.

And Chris Dodd, who voted against the condemnation, just released this searing statement criticizing the Senate for wasting its time on this:

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

Later Update: MoveOn chief Eli Pariser hits back at the Senate with this:

"No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want -- vote to end this war."

Full list of Dems who backed the resolution after the jump.

Read more »

Barbara Boxer's resolution -- which condemned all political attacks questioning the integrity and patriotism of military figures, such as the ones against Max Cleland and John Kerry, and not just MoveOn's criticism of General Petraeus -- has just gone down to defeat. The vote was 51-46 -- far short of the magic number of 60.

Virtually all the GOP Senators refused to support this measure condemning all political attacks on military figures. A full list of them after the jump.

Read more »

Harry Reid's office has just told me that he and Dem Senator Carl Levin will be voting against the GOP resolution to condemn MoveOn that's being debated as we speak.

His office says, however, that he and Levin will vote for the reso being introduced by Barbara Boxer, -- which we reported on below -- that condemns all political attacks on military men and women, including Max Cleland and John Kerry, as well as on Scholar Warrior Petraeus.

Thus is revealed the point behind the Boxer move: Reid and Levin, by voting for Boxer's reso, insulate themselves from charges that they won't condemn MoveOn for attacking the General -- while simultaneously forcing Republicans to decide whether or not to condemn such attacks that came from their own party.

Of course, it doesn't bode well for MoveOn, obviously, since Boxer's reso condemns the group, too.

Looks like there's going to be another contentious vote in the Senate today. Harry Reid's office tells me that there's going to be a vote today on a GOP-introduced resolution on whether to condemn MoveOn for running its ad criticizing Scholar-Warrior Petraeus.

But there's an interesting twist to this. I'm told that Senator Barbara Boxer is set to introduce a separate counter resolution, which hasn't yet been made public, that would call for condemation of all political attacks on the "honor, integrity, and patriotism" of men and women in the military. Boxer's reso specifically mentions GOP attacks on both Max Cleland in 2002 and John Kerry in 2004, in addition to the MoveOn ad against Petraeus.

What this means is that Republicans who want to condemn MoveOn will also now be asked to condemn the Republican National Committee and other GOPers' attacks on both Cleland and Kerry. It will be interesting to see how Republican Senators handle this one.

I've obtained a copy of Boxer's resolution; its full text is after the jump.

Late Update: Senate debate on this is underway.

Read more »

Here's Harry Reid's statement on the failure of the Webb troop rest bill to garner the 60 votes it needed to clear a GOP filibuster:

“In blocking this bipartisan bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated that they are more committed to protecting the President than protecting our troops. They have shown they will allow President Bush’s flawed war strategy to continue to strain our military rather than allow the availability of troops to dictate our operations. And they believe it is in our national security interest to push our brave troops and their families beyond their breaking point.

“Democrats disagree. We care deeply about rebuilding our badly overextended military and ensuring our troops have the time to properly train, prepare for and recover from battle. And Democrats remain committed to repaying in some small measure the sacrifices our brave troops are making every day.”