home

Steny's Surrender On FISA A Done Deal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:06:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via mcjoan, CQ reports:

Hoyer has a done deal, according to CQ.com (sub. req.):

A final deal has been reached on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules and will be announced Thursday, two congressional aides said. The aides said the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday.... One source said the federal district court deciding on retroactive immunity would review whether there was "substantial evidence" the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration’s program was legal.

Who to call:

Call Barack Obama and urge him to make a public statement reiterating his opposition to telco amnesty. His opposition could kill this deal: Phone (202) 224-2854, Fax (202) 228-4260 Call Steny Hoyer and tell him this is a bad deal: Phone (202) 225-4131, Fax (202) 225-4300 Call Nancy Pelosi and urge her to pull the bill from the House schedule: Phone (202) 225-4965, Fax (202) 225-8259

< SCOTUS Upholds (Subject to Limits) Right to Self-Representation | Omar Khadr Gitmo Trial Set for Oct 8 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Steny's Surrender On FISA A Done Deal | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Anyone still thinking about voting (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    for John McCain should keep in mind that the 111th Congress isn't going to be any better than the 110th has been in protecting you from another crazy loon Republican President.

    This FISA fight is just one of many examples of how easily they will capitulate and the potential for continued erosion of our Constitutional democracy.

    Just sayin'.

    That's why it would be nice to... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:23:11 AM EST
    ...see Obama use his manifest Parliamentary skilz to create a movement in the Senate and block this bill.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    I know the enthusiastic Obama supporters find this hard to understand, but some of us are still waiting for actual evidence that he would be better (on a practical level) than the alternative. Speeches don't cut it.

    Obama's showing leadership on this issue would make a big difference and go a long way toward reconciling me to the prospect of voting for him. That is to say, not just making a statement, but actually working to get opposition lined up in Congress (House and, esp, Senate). [How about pressuring his BFFs Pelosi and Reid? That could be done behind the scenes for that matter, but if I saw them doing the right thing here I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he had a hand in it. Just sayin'.]

    Parent

    I don't find it hard to understand at all. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    I'm pretty ticked off as well.  He's letting a golden opportunity go by here.

    Parent
    Too late (none / 0) (#26)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    The senate already passed this bill, with the amnesty provision, about two (maybe three?) months ago.  It's in the house now, then committee.  I don't know what Obama's power is there, but I suspect it's mostly symbolic as the party nominee. Pelosi is really the only senior democrat with a practical method for stopping this.  And presumably if there's a deal, she's already signed on.

    It's sad.  But it's sadder still that folks here want to use it as a club against their favorite punching bag instead of looking at the big picture.  Reading the attitude in this thread you'd think he wrote the bill himself.

    Parent

    I just look at a guiy who reckons he's got it all (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    sewn up and he's coasting.  Reminds me of Hillary during the summer.

    Parent
    I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    Obama is the nominee of the party, its most visible member.  If he were to take a public stand against this bill, I believe he has enough political capital to stop it.  Like most of the other Democrats, he just doesn't seem to care that much.

    Parent
    More Opposaporting that terrible bill. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST


    Parent
    No, this bill appears to be different (none / 0) (#31)
    by eric on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    This bill has the provision that allows the Court to examine the evidence and grant the immuntity.  The Senate rejected this compromise and granted outright immunity.  I believe the Senate will have to take up this bill anew.

    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#41)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    not that bill. New business.

    And in any event, that does not rule out his having a little chat with, at the very least, Pelosi.

    I do not apologize for the fact that I remain skeptical of the guy until I see some actual evidence that he can get things done.

    Parent

    Pelosi played kingmaker (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    in the primaries, I doubt (even were he so inclined) Obama has any power over her now.

    I can't make sense of this in any way.  All they have to do is wait out Bush.  Even if McCain wins in the fall, the worst he could do is threaten the same veto as Bush.

    Unless this is a way of trying to share the blame with Bush -- if they wait and Obama's president, they can't hide behind 'oh! those big scary Republicans made us do it!'

    And/or they think opposing FISA could be used in the election as more weak-on-terror fodder?

    Sheesh, for the love of Diogenes!

    Parent

    I know! (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    Publicly, the House was not getting any pressure to change their stance. In fact, America agrees that Big Brother should NOT be watching us!

    Bush is a total and complete lame duck at this point. His approval rating is 24%. The only thing he can do is bomb Iran, and he's not likely to do that anymore because it would raise oil prices too much (so I've heard, anyway).

    I'm utterly befuddled.

    Parent

    befuddled is right (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    I can't even concoct weird conspiracy-theory explanations for the behavior of Dems in Congress in the past year. They come roaring in, January 2007, with a wave of announced hearings and investigations, and then get bogged down and dragged out and can't seem to stand up to Bush in any prolonged, meaningful way. Despite the fact that costs them their own positive rating. It just... doesn't... make... sense...

    Parent
    Who Is Going To Protect Us From The (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    Democrats in Congress? Many Dems supported this from the very  beginning. Others did not need to capitulate because the polls and their constituents did not support them giving in on this issue. Maybe, it is time we consider that the Dems are doing what they are doing because that is what they want to do to maintain corporate contributions or to keep this ability in place for a Democratic president.

    Parent
    Honestly, I don't think we will (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    get away from this national security track until the large majority of members of Congress are not people who lived through September 11th on Capitol Hill.  That is one advantage that Obama does bring with him.  He is not imprinted with the fear that many of the people currently serving have - which I think has greatly affected their judgment skills.  This debate is not just about ATT, Verizon etc. - it is about fear. That's why they capitulated in the summer of 2007 and extended the bill.  Many of them actually believed Trent Lott when he said that everyone in Washington should leave DC until after September 12th.  It was proven to be a lie by Elenor Holmes Norton who tracked down the agencies all of whom said there was no greater threat at the time than any other.

    But not having a GOP Neo-Con in the White House would protect us from the most extreme requests - I think and that means that Congress won't act because as it is the nature of Congress to avoid action - not having anyone to spur them on is at least half the battle in preventing them from continuing to erode the Constitution.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    you didn't see obama's most recent statements on the national sec./terrorism/fear issue.

    It was posted last night here on this blog.

    Parent

    I did see those, but I hear someone who (none / 0) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    is being told to fear - not acting out of fear directly related to a personal experience.  I didn't say he'd be great - just perhaps a little bit less weird about it than the people who were there at the time.  One of the reasons that I kind of liked Edwards is that I got the sense that he understood that he had been manipulated into voting for the Iraq war resolution.  I felt like he would take more of what he was fed with a grain of salt from now on.  If Clinton had been able to admit that, I would have probably gone into her corner full force.  Obama never proved he would do anything of note about stopping the war after he made that speech.  So for me Clinton and Obama sort of cancelled each other out and Edwards came out the winner in my mind.  But my point about Obama was more that he is less likely to draw on that day's experience on the front lines than those who were there - which in and of itself is something at least marginally good to say about him.  Just trying to stay positive to the extent that I can.  He's never been my fav and has hardly ever impressed me past his DNC speech which now having seen him in action has lost a lot of its luster for me - I read that speech very differently now that I did when I listened to it live at the time.

    The thing is that we don't know how much of what he said about National Security is real or pandering - we never properly vetted any of our candidates on key issues during this primary - so we'll find out where he stands when and if he is elected.  Definitely not how I wanted to do it, but that's the way it has played out.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I agree (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    I'm beginning to believe it is not about fear but about money and maintaining the same presidential power for a Democratic president.

    Obama isn't behaving any different than the pols that were there  on 9/11.  He would have been out in front of this from the very beginning if what you say is true. Instead, he has been a reluctant and often absentee participant in this whole issue because he doesn't want it to be a major issue in the GE. Neither  he nor Hillary wanted to be a leader on this issue and they weren't.

    January will be too late because once the telecoms receive immunity it is a done deal.

    Parent

    Oh I don't think he's going to be a great (none / 0) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    improvement because I don't think he is much of a trail blazer, but I meant more that he isn't gripped by fear in the same way some of these other people are and won't probably ever be because being a member of Congress at that time was I believe a very frightening experience on numerous levels.  I saw the same thing in the NY media who covered 9/11.  It wasn't hard for them to walk away from basic notions of democracy largely because they had had a personal experience that was so traumatic.  It is PST I think that we are going to be dealing with until these folks cycle out of DC.  Not that there aren't other influences - and money and power are certainly always factors - but I think the fear and trauma gives the whole thing an edge that has made a lot of this stuff a whole lot easier for BushCult to move through.  People often forget that members of Congress are just as vulnerable to typical human frailties as the rest of us are.  Some/many of these politicians were cowards well before 9/11 - and 9/11 gave them cover to be openly cowardly.

    Parent
    No Profiles in Courage here. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by claudius on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    Too bad Obama is too spineless do something about this for fear political / electoral consequences.

    Parent
    If you expect leadership on... (none / 0) (#49)
    by NotThatStupid on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    ... tough issues from Senator Obama, you may have to wait twenty years.

    As I have said before.

    (couldn't resist commenting on this... now, I'll fade away again)

    Parent

    Sorry, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    You might as well call Ghostbusters.

    If he hasn't done it by now... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    he's going to stay quiet.

    Nah, if pressed he will say something about (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    it after it is a done deal.

    Parent
    A. He shouldn't HAVE to be pressed (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    to do the "Leadership" thing. It should be automatic for a Leader...

    B. After the fact is too late and he'll look like a lackadaisical candidate with an "Oh BTW...I don't care for that plan you just passed" platform. Way to "take on Congressional leadership."

    Parent

    Leadership Is So Yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    and evidently not required to win elections.

    Parent
    The Dem's, including Obama, clearly favor (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    retroactive immunity.  The rest is just theater for us little people.

    MY take on it too n/t (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM EST


    Parent
    It's the only take that makes sense ... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    because opposing immunity is not only right, but it's a political winner.

    So the only explanation for their caving on this issue is they actually want Telcom immunity.

    Parent

    It seems so... (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    but why?

    And why now?

    Believe it or not, I don't care if Obama steps up on this issue. I think Nancy Pelosi owns it, and she's suddenly done a 180.

    Maybe Hoyer has something on her. Or maybe the Democrat Surveillance Program (my name for warrantless wiretapping) caught her with a farm animal. Who knows?

    I wish I were a fly on the wall in Nancy's house.

    Parent

    Since they became the majority the (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    SOP has been to do a little kabuki theater on strongly opposing Bush and the Republicans before giving them everything they want. Smoke and mirrors to give the illusion that they are trying maybe. Democratic voters want desperately to believe that the Dems are better than the Republicans and have bent over backwards to rationalize their behavior. Maybe they are not. They are getting record setting amounts in contributions from "Help End The Occupation and "Save The Constitution" pleas so I guess they have reason to believe what they are doing is working.

    Parent
    Prolly cause the Dem's are not really (none / 0) (#62)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:49:47 AM EST
    against it.  Maybe they don't want to face questions about FISA in the elections.  Frankly, the immunity isn't so much the issue as the wire taping authority will basically continue.  Maybe the Dem's want that authority too should they win the WH.

    Parent
    I e-mailed (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    Both my Illinois Senators over this issue. I receive a response from Durbin's office within two days. He stated that he was opposed to immunity and would vote against it.

    The Obama response took quite a bit longer. In it he framed the importance of national security and the need to combat terrorists while protecting the Constitution. It didn't sound encouraging.

    I cannot tell you how (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:54:06 AM EST
    unbelievably aggravating it is to read Democrats being quoted as saying that it was important to get Bush a bill he would sign - why in the name of all that is holy are they kowtowing to a lame-duck president with an approval rating that is below 30%?  Why the heck do they care about George Freakin' Bush?

    For one, it's the absolutely wrong goal for them to have, and for another, it just tells me that either they really do not understand the issues, and/or they have been so well-lobbied by the telecoms that they are only seeing the risks/benefits to their precious careers and have lost all sight of what we sent them to Washington to do.  

    And I think there's a lot of Democratic CYA going on - a LOT - and there are more than a few members of the House and Senate who know that lawsuits will reveal their own complicity in the wrongdoing; I have actually managed to convince myself that that is Reason Number One why Pelosi took impeachment off the table - she's looking out for herself.

    I have no respect for these people anymore; it's all about them, and it's getting worse.

    The ones who say that (4.80 / 5) (#36)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    (like Pelosi, I guess) seem to be assuming that there is a need for this bill or something like it so that our national security won't be threatened by the alleged shortcomings of FISA.

    The point is that this is not correct. There is no need for this bill. With or without teleco immunity. Our national security is not put at risk.

    Oh how I wish we had courageous leaders to speak the truth...

    Parent

    You nailed it right! (none / 0) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Something is very wrong (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    with this picture.

    Nancy Pelosi was very, very strong on refusing telecom immunity for months. All of a sudden, she is allowing Steny Hoyer to hijack the issue and not using her Speaker powers to yank the bill.

    I wish I knew what is going on behind the scenes to make this about-face happen.

    Oh, and by the way? Steny sucks. ;-)

    I've read telecomm industry is second (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    biggest contributor to Congressional campaign war chests.

    Parent
    Did they suddenly step up their contributions? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    Because I read the same thing, but it didn't seem to make any difference in February.

    Parent
    Getting closer to Nov. elections for (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    House of Repres.

    Parent
    Bottom line may be (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    Steny Hoyer can count and has the votes.

    He is her constant opponent for Speaker and he was backed for number two by the caucus in oppo to her favorite and announced choice, Murtha.

    Steny is breathing down her neck re the Speakership.

    She has to cave if he has the caucus and she doesn't dare cross him/them to keep her office.

    No profiles in courage this year.

    Parent

    As we are continually reminded! (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    If you have nothing to hide, this shouldn't bother you. Well maybe we need to start tapping their phones.

    When the Dept. of Commerce (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    interviewer arrived at my front door for the between-census update, I started ranting about warrantless wiretaps and asked him if lots of people were complaining.  He sd. they complain about data security on laptops, which is what he was entering my responses on.  

    Parent
    Good point! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    This is a bellwether for any legislation that affects the Telcos.

    I'm about as pessimistic as you are, while secretly hoping that someone will pleasantly surprise me.

    Talking points (none / 0) (#1)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    For people like me, who get so overwhelmed that we find it hard to concentrate ;-)

    This NY Times editorial (previously linked and quoted by  BTD) is a good summary of what's at stake here, I think.

    NYT Editorial (none / 0) (#9)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    The NYT editorial claims "an Internet-age problem with FISA: It requires a warrant to eavesdrop on foreign communications that go through American computers"

    Ummm, no. It didn't. The statute SPECIFIES that what is in the scope of electronic surveillance is "of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States." See 50 USC 1801(f).

    There is a whole lot of smoke being blown around.

    Parent

    I'm concentrating on their argument against (none / 0) (#16)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    And ignoring what they say is good. As I understand it, there's no need for this bill at all as FISA gives more than enough. (I think that's what you're saying.)

    Parent
    FISAa v. Revised FISA (none / 0) (#48)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    I'm just saying that the statement, "FISA prevented warrantless snatching of foreign-foreign communications" is FALSE.

    I can see numerous places where I'd change FISA, but none of them as radical as what will pass, and NOT a Congressionally-enacted, one-time "get out of court" card.

    OTOH, the Congressional action confirms my opinion that Congress is an enemy of freedom.

    Parent

    Has it not been alleged (none / 0) (#12)
    by eric on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    that some of this spying took place before Sept. 11, 2001?  Looking at that bill, it only seems to allow for the Court to grant immunity for post Sept. 11 spying.

    More on this (none / 0) (#15)
    by eric on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    googling a bit, I see plenty of stories like this one, where it is alleged that spying took place before Sept. 11, 2001.

    Parent
    I've been busy promoting diaries (none / 0) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    on this topic such as:
    this
    this
    this
    and
    this
    If (like me) you have no abhorrence of the GOS, go on over and add your voice on this issue.

    I'm not sure why (none / 0) (#17)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:36:23 AM EST
    he doesn't take this opportunity to speak up.  He already voted against the telco immunity once and this would be a chance to shut McCain up about Obama "never" going against his party.  He'll probably vote against this again tomorrow, but he should also make a public statement about the vote.

    Statement, schmatement (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:43:03 AM EST
    (Well, no, actually a statement would be good too)

    But let him show us how he can work together with Congress to kill this thing. Leadership.

    Sorry, talk's cheap, and our civil liberties are at stake. The fourth amendment and all.

    I am deathly afraid of what the Bush administration still has in store for us with 215 days to go. It's bad enough the Dems in Congress don't seem to want to make any positive changes before then: here's a chance to put the brakes on Bush getting even more of what he wants, and it looks as if they're going to give it to him.

    Nice time for a little demonstration of why we should want Demoncrats in power. I'm waiting...

    Parent

    And maybe more important (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    (sorry, I forgot when I posted the above - that overwhelmed thing again!)

    The matter of not allowing retroactive immunity to lawbreakers.

    Dangerous.

    Parent

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    I think you're right.  Voting against it is not enough here.  I put in my call to his office to urge demonstrative action.  I hope many others do as well.

    Parent
    Money is probably the answer (none / 0) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    We hear how much money these company contribute to politicians. What I would really like to know is how much the government is paying these telecom's for their patriotism? I would guess they're getting a lot more than they're giving.

    Wait - I just realized what it is... (none / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    They don't want to impeach Bush because they don't want to lose the election. Kucinich is agitating about bringing up impeachment again.

    The warrantless wiretapping program is the epitome of an impeachable offense. If they refuse telecom immunity on Constitutional grounds, they will have to follow through and impeach Bush.

    And... (none / 0) (#55)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    impeaching Bush causes them to lose the election, how?

    Or is this snark and I've missed it?

    I've never understood the argument against impeachment. (I know Jeralyn thinks it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure I understand why.)

    Parent

    Discussed it with Feingold last Friday (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    He and Dodd were still going to do "everything we can" to derail the bill, but his tone and bodylanguage were not very hopeful.

    Obama's Illinois district offices (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    His DC lines are hosed, try

    District Office- Moline:
    1911 52nd Avenue
    Moline, IL 61265
    Phone: 309-736-1217
    Fax: 309-736-1233

    District Office- Springfield:
    607 East Adams Street
    Springfield, IL 62701
    Phone: 217-492-5089
    Fax: 217-492-5099

    District Office- Chicago:
    John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building, Suite 3900
    230 South Dearborn
    Chicago, IL 60604
    Phone: 312-886-3506
    Fax: 312-886-3514

    District Office- Marion:
    701 North Court Street
    Marion, IL 62959
    Phone: 618-997-2402
    Fax: 618-997-2850

    Steny's Surrender On FISA A Done Deal | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment