Senators that voted to allow FISA telecom immunity

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 )
Vote Number: 168 Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 69
NAYs 28
Not Voting 3

There are quite a few senators taking in heavy contributions from the telecom industry, needless to say:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —69
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCaskill (D-MO)	McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs —28
Akaka (D-HI) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT)	Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ)	Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting – 3
Kennedy (D-MA)	McCain (R-AZ)	Sessions (R-AL)

FISA, Bush, Republicans, and telecom immunity

Found this over at Brian Dennert’s blog at the Star. Certainly puts this issue in a plain and simple manner. I wonder what our local Congressional Representative Elton Gallegly will do to protect our rights now. Any thoughts on his concern for the Constitution?

Is George Bush Finally Telling the Truth?

Glen Greenwald of Salon thinks so.  In his blog yesterday Greenwald highlights reasons why Bush wants immunity for the telecom industry and it may have more to do with protecting his administration than battling any terrorists. Here is what Greenwald has to say:

In his Press Conference yesterday, Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush candidly explained why he was so eager to have Congress grant amnesty to telecoms:

Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance.

The bit about Helping the Enemies is purely false, just standard Bush fear-mongering. Federal courts receive and rule on highly classified information with great regularity without any public “disclosure.” FISA (in 50 USC 1806(f)) specifically provides that secret information can be submitted to the Judge without even the other side having access to it. If — as the President suggested — courts can’t be trusted with national security secrets, then it would mean, just as he intends and just as much of the press has accepted, government officials are free to break the law in secret by claiming that national security concerns prevent courts from ruling on what they did. In a Super Scary World, the need for secrecy outweighs all. But on a more important level, Bush is finally being candid about the real reason the administration is so desperate to have these surveillance lawsuits dismissed. It’s because those lawsuits are the absolute last hope for ever learning what the administration did when they spied on Americans for years in violation of the law. Dismissal via amnesty would ensure that their spying behavior stays permanently concealed, buried forever, and as importantly, that no court ever rules on the legality of what they did. Isn’t it striking how that implication of telecom amnesty is never discussed, and how little interest it generates among journalists — whose role, theoretically, is to uncover secret government actions?

There was an explosion of press interest for a couple of days last May when former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified about the melodramatic hospital scene where John Ashcroft refused the demands of Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card to authorize whatever it was the President’s domestic spying program entailed, but the most significant revelation from Comey’s testimony was — and still is — that the administration was engaged in spying activities back then so patently illegal and unconscionable that the entire top level of the DOJ threatened to resign if they continued.

What was it that the administration was doing that provoked that reaction even among its own far right political appointees at the DOJ? On which Americans were they spying without warrants, how were those Americans selected, and what was done with the information? Former OLC official Marty Lederman perfectly described the glaring, unanswered questions about Bush’s domestic spying programs raised by the Comey testimony — questions that are still unanswered and will remain so forever if Congress gives Bush telecom amnesty:

If [the TSP is] the narrow version of the NSA program, just how broad and indiscriminate was the surveillance under the program that Ashcroft, et al. would not approve? . . . This is the real heart of the Comey story — What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard? Just how radical were the Administration’s legal judgments? How extreme were the programs they implemented? How egregious was the lawbreaking?

We still have no idea. Nobody does. And the establishment press could not be any less interested in finding out. The number two official at the Justice Department openly reveals that the President — with the active, knowing collaboration of the telecom industry — was breaking the law so severely for years that it was about to provoke mass resignations from his loyal right-wing appointees, and we all just collectively yawn, blissfully content not to know what they did. The telecom lawsuits are the last hope for finding any of this out. They’re the last hope for ever having this still-secret behavior subjected to the rule of law and enabling the American people to learn about what their Government did for years in illegally spying on them. That’s why — the only real reason — the White House is so desperate for telecom amnesty. That’s what George Bush means when he says that amnesty is urgent “because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance.” In a functioning democracy, when high political officials break the law, such behavior is actually supposed to be “disclosed,” not concealed.  read more

Senators That Voted To Allow Immunity for the Telecom Industry With FISA

There will always be another election.  When that comes, keep your state senator in mind.  Did your senator vote to protect your privacy?  Do they uphold our liberties?

Today in the senate, the FISA debate was wrapped up and the vote was held.  Hillary Clinton did not show up to vote.  California Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to allow telecom immunity and spying on Americans.  Too bad, Feinstein isn’t up for re-election until 2012.  However, we have good memories around here.

Want to know how your state senator voted?

From Senate.gov, here is a summary and the voting record of each senator according to their state:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110^th Congress – 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 )
Vote Number:	15	Vote Date:	February 12, 2008, 11:03 AM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number:	S.Amdt. 3907 to S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
Statement of Purpose:	To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	31
	NAYs	67
	Not Voting	2

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Nay (allows telecom immunity)	Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:	Murkowski (R-AK), Nay	Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:	Kyl (R-AZ), Nay	McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:	Lincoln (D-AR), Nay	Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Yea	Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado:	Allard (R-CO), Nay	Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut:	Dodd (D-CT), Yea	Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Delaware:	Biden (D-DE), Yea	Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida:	Martinez (R-FL), Nay	Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia:	Chambliss (R-GA), Nay	Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:	Akaka (D-HI), Yea	Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho:	Craig (R-ID), Nay	Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Yea	Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:	Bayh (D-IN), Nay	Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa:	Grassley (R-IA), Nay	Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:	Brownback (R-KS), Nay	Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:	Bunning (R-KY), Nay	McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:	Landrieu (D-LA), Nay	Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Nay	Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland:	Cardin (D-MD), Yea	Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts:	Kennedy (D-MA), Yea	Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:	Levin (D-MI), Yea	Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota:	Coleman (R-MN), Nay	Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Nay	Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:	Bond (R-MO), Nay	McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana:	Baucus (D-MT), Yea	Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:	Hagel (R-NE), Nay	Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada:	Ensign (R-NV), Nay	Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:	Gregg (R-NH), Nay	Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey:	Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea	Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:	Bingaman (D-NM), Yea	Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York:	Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting	Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:	Burr (R-NC), Nay	Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota:	Conrad (D-ND), Nay	Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:	Brown (D-OH), Yea	Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:	Coburn (R-OK), Nay	Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:	Smith (R-OR), Nay	Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:	Casey (D-PA), Yea	Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island:	Reed (D-RI), Yea	Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:	DeMint (R-SC), Nay	Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
South Dakota:	Johnson (D-SD), Nay	Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Nay	Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Nay	Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah:	Bennett (R-UT), Nay	Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:	Leahy (D-VT), Yea	Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:	Warner (R-VA), Nay	Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Yea	Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:	Byrd (D-WV), Yea	Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin:	Feingold (D-WI), Yea	Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming:	Barrasso (R-WY), Nay	Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Telecom Immunity Passes In The Senate – Where Was Hillary Clinton During The FISA Update Vote?

Not there. She did not vote to protect Americans’ privacy.

The importance of this vote, which had been hotly debated in the Senate for months, and Senator Clinton’s lack of attendance on this day speaks volumes about her concern for American liberties and freedom. The update to FISA gives the telecom industry immunity for their warrantless surveillance program. Clinton’s lack of action on this bill is in clear contrast to her spoken views on the Bush administration. On this vote, Clinton bowed out. Her bowing out supported the Bush administration’s agenda. Just what party is she working with? Her past and current voting history may seem more in-line with what we want change from.

Barack Obama did show up and he did vote to stop the FISA changes that would provide immunity to the telecom industry, clearly scoring major points for American liberties.

From Politico:

An attempt to strip lawsuit immunity for telecom firms that helped the government tap phone calls fell well short in the Senate Tuesday, leaving liberal Democrats on the losing side of what they believe is a fundamental civil liberties debate.

Only 31 senators — all Democrats — voted to take away retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies facing lawsuits over wiretaps carried out under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sixty-seven senators — a mix of Republicans and Democrats — voted against the amendment.

With the immunity provision intact, the Senate voted late Tuesday afternoon to pass the bill, 68-29, setting up a tough negotiation with the House, which opposed telecom lawsuit immunity. The Senate vote amounts to a major victory for the White House, which had threatened to veto the bill if it did not protect telecom companies that aided spy agencies with wiretapping.

The vote also provided an opportunity to showcase the key differences on national security between presidential candidates, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted against immunity for telecoms, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), voted to keep immunity in the bill. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not show up for the vote. All three candidates were in the Washington area Tuesday morning for the region’s three primaries.

Every Democrat should be seriously concerned about Senator Clinton and her intentions.