People For the American Way (PFAW) has a petition that will be sent to Congress urging the rejection of retroactive immunity for telecom companies that assisted with the warrantless wiretapping program. Click here to sign the petition. PFAW has also just completed a compilation of activists across the country that sent in video testimonials opposing immunity. The Senate passed a bill last week to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that includes retroactive immunity, but the House has so far refused to give in, which is why this petition is so important. Read OMB Watch coverage from the latest Watcher, "House Forces Expiration of Protect America Act".

Click here to watch PFAW's video and to sign the petition.

S.1959, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" was the subject of a protest in Portland Maine. Sponsored by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the bill would set up a government commission to study U.S. based terrorism. The commission would examine and report on what the bill calls "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism" and "ideologically based violence."

The Portland Press Herald reports that the protesters are concerned about the bill's vague language that could lead to a violation of free speech rights. The speakers at the rally considered the proposal to be "reminiscent of the House Un-American Activities Commission, which investigated suspected Communists during the 1950s and is now seen widely as part of a shameful chapter in U.S. history."

Maureen Block, the rally's organizer, said the bill would use fear and intimidation to try to silence people whose views challenge authority. Shortly before the rally, Collins' office distributed a news release about the bill. The news release notes that the measure would not criminalize any behavior, but only study threats.

Read OMB Watch coverage of the bill here, "Study Commission or Thought Police?"

The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California ruled that the Treasury Department must release to the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR) of the San Francisco Bay Area documents detailing complaints from people who claim they were wrongly placed on a terrorist watch list. The lawsuit challenges Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), seeking further information about how Treasury manages its list of 6,000 suspected or known terrorists and others, called the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

The LCCR press release states that increasingly "private companies, including banks, mortgage companies, car dealerships, health insurers, landlords and employers, screen consumers' names against the OFAC list. Few people in the United States are actually on the list, but sharing a first, last or even middle name with someone on the list can trigger a 'false positive' match. Consumers discover the OFAC alert when they are told that they cannot make a purchase, open an account, or do business because their name appears on a terror list. On March 28, 2007, Treasury Department Secretary Paulson testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that the Treasury Department had received 90,000 calls over a one-year period regarding the OFAC list and that the Treasury Department was 'concerned' about the serious hardship on ordinary Americans wrongly flagged as terrorists or drug traffickers."

The lawsuit began when LCCR filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in August 2005 that requested OFAC information on the SDN list dating from 2000. Without receiving any documents from Treasury, LCCR filed a lawsuit in May 2007.

The recent decision ordered Treasury to release certain records, such as public emails, letters, and petitions that requested names to be removed from the list. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the judge "refused to order the department to provide a breakdown of phone calls made to the agency's public hot line - more than 90,000 in a recent one-year period, according to congressional testimony - or to describe the nature of the inquiries and how they were handled. She also declined to require information on how the department verifies the accuracy of the list and handles complaints, saying officials had found no such documents."

Revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) remain at a stand still. The House turned down a 21 day extension of the temporary Protect America Act, law governing electronic surveillance, with a 229-191 vote. Rather than taking action on the Senate's bill that would provide retroactive immunity for companies, House Democrats will let the law expire holding firm for a conference of the bill. The President asserts that this will put our nation at risk. Clearly using fear tactics to get Congress to act, President Bush commented yesterday, "terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." Bush has repeatedly pledged his support for the Senate measure, and promised to oppose any more extensions or temporary bills.

On the other hand, some argue that having the law expire will have no immediate detrimental effect; the law's provisions remain in effect for a year, giving Congress time to debate. This fact sheet from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) argues that surveillance will not end.

Acting in protest, House Republicans left the chamber yesterday Feb. 14, angry that Democratic leaders did not call up the Senate passed bill.

As expected, the Senate passed a measure to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), S.2248, granting retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped with warrantless surveillance. After weeks of debate and votes on amendments, the bill remains basically the same as it did when passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. None of the amendments passed that would have in any way reduced executive spying powers.

The New York Times describes the events; "After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants."

The temporary extension expires February 16, leaving little time for a House-Senate conference to resolve the very different measures. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has introduced a 15 day extension to allow time to complete negotiations, but President Bush has said he would refuse to sign it. Now Congress will be up against the argument that if the Senate version is not simply accepted or if the current law is left to expire, the country will be vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This ignores the fact that current investigations can continue until August or possibly later, and the FISA court can still be used to get approval for new wiretaps. As a quote from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) explains; "Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration."

The main discrepancy between the two chambers is the issue of immunity, and House Democrats argue that the administration has not provided enough evidence to justify providing such retroactive immunity. In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said, "refusal to provide the requested information belies its position on the importance of legislation: rather than the Administration giving Congress all the information it needs, the Administration has provided a slow trickle of information to only selected members of Congress, almost assuring that Congress cannot adequately consider its requests." Conyers' letter also requested additional. In addition, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) and two subcommittee chairs sent a dear colleague letter urging House Members to avoid rushing into a decision on retroactive immunity.

Even though they gave themselves more time to consider amendments, none of the amendments offered to improve S.2248 have passed. Two amendments offered by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) failed. One was meant to block "reverse targeting," which is when a foreign subject is the surveillance target while in actuality the intended target is in the U.S. The second amendment would have given the FISA court the ability to prevent the government from using information about Americans when obtained in a way that was later decided as illegal. Another failed amendment was offered by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) that would sunset the FISA bill in four years instead of six.

Debate on amendments will continue on Monday, with a vote expected on retroactive legal immunity to companies being sued for their alleged participation in the warrantless surveillance program. CQ ($$) reports that a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate on Tuesday could possibly result in final passage later that day.

If a bill passes as planned in the Senate, there is very little time between Tuesday and the Presidents Day recess that begins February 15 for a conference between the Senate and the House, which is why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), has filed a bill that would extend the current law for another 15 days.

After days of negotiations over how to proceed with a bill to revise to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), CQ ($$) has reported that the Senate will now vote next week with two days of debate after coming to an agreement as far as which amendments to allow. Meanwhile, allowing Congress more time, President Bush has passed a 15 day extension (until Feb. 16) of the Protect America Act.

Another [Senator Russ] Feingold [D-WI] amendment would require the attorney general and the director of National Intelligence to certify that the tapping of communications is limited to those involving at least one specific individual target outside the United States, with the "significant purpose" of obtaining foreign intelligence information. A second [Senator Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA] amendment would seek to establish that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance. A measure by Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., would sunset the bill after four years, instead of six years, as currently written. The Feinstein and Cardin amendments would have to meet the 60-vote threshold. Republicans pressed for the threshold to head off any amendments that would significantly change the bill, which was negotiated with the White House.