Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote an op-ed in today's Washington Times about the House of Represetatives' failure to compromise on legislation renewing key portions of FISA.

This legislation was the product of months of briefings and negotiations with Bush administration and intelligence officials, deliberation in the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees, and debate on the Senate floor. Senators on both sides of the aisle remarked that this was the most important piece of legislation that Congress would address this year and, remarkably, it passed the Senate by a supermajority vote of 68-29.

Unfortunately, this rare demonstration of unity was derailed two days later when the leadership of the House of Representatives refused to allow a vote on the Senate bill, even though a bipartisan majority in the House supported the legislation.

Instead of working to "bring the country together," House leaders spent their last legislative day before a weeklong vacation debating and voting on a seven-month-old contempt resolution against former White House officials, furthering a needless partisan fight.

When they adjourned without voting on the Senate's FISA modernization bill, House leaders ensured the expiration of the Protect America Act, a temporary fix to the existing FISA law and, in many ways, tied the hands of our intelligence community.

Having swiftly dispatched any display of "unity" and "bipartisanship," House leaders quickly employed another catchphrase we have heard in the presidential race: ending the "politics of fear." As is the case with "unity" and "change," such a development would be welcome indeed.

However, too many in Washington equate ending the "politics of fear" with setting aside concerns about terrorism and our national security and replacing them with a fear of government investigators, who, they wrongly assert, are just itching for an opportunity to listen to Americans' phone calls, read all of their e-mails and spy on their families overseas.

Of course, such claims are irrational and unsupported by any evidence. Yet many in Washington would have the American people believe that these are our U.S. intelligence community's real goals.

An editorial appearing in the Washington Times today examines the new House version of this legislation being put forth by the Democratic leadership.  This new version of the bill leaves the quesiton of immunity up to the federal courts, virtually guaranteeing years of litigation for trial lawyers - a top donor constituency for the liberal majority.

Rather than bar lawsuits against companies for doing their patriotic duty by helping the U.S. government prevent terrorist attacks, the Pelosi plan would ensure that they remain vulnerable to new litigation: House Democrats would create a bipartisan congressional commission with subpoena power to issue a report on U.S. terrorist surveillance programs. They would leave the issue of immunity to the federal courts — ensuring that it becomes the subject of protracted litigation that could go on for years.

Tomorrow, the speaker plans to send the House on another vacation — this one for two weeks. Her motto seems to be: It ain't over until the terrorists and trial lawyers win.

This legislation, an important component to America's efforts to keep the homeland secure, has been allowed to lapse while the liberal majority bows to MoveOn.org and the trial lawyer lobby.  American law enfocement should be able to listen to overseas terrorist calls, and telecom companies assisting in this effort should be immune from prosecution incurred by their assistance.