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.

The dynamic that's unfolding right now among Dems is this: Progressives say that the House leadership has been debating what approach to take to the legislation behind closed doors, and some progressive members are nervous that they will be shut out of the decisionmaking over the bill. But sources within the leadership insist that this isn't the case and that in fact the two relevant committees are driving the process.

Last night House progressives, as a way to pressure the leadership to hear their concerns right now, released a list of their demands for the legislation (you can read it below).

"We got involved too late last time," says a top aide to a leading House progressive. "We want to lay out our position before this starts in earnest."

The political goal of the progressives is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will head into negotiations with the White House with both a stronger bill and with a much stronger sense that there's a good deal of House support for a bill that contains much tougher civil liberties protections. "We want to strengthen her hand -- to enable her to go into negotiations with the White House while pointing to broad opposition within her own party to anything that weakens civil liberties," the aide says.

Adding to the concerns of progressives is the fact that no one outside leadership and the relevant committees is sure of the legislative specifics of what the committees are putting together. The American Civil Liberties Union has has said that it hasn't been briefed on the bill. It's unclear whether the postponement was due to the concerns of the ACLU and House progressives.

Meanwhile, some on the left have speculated that Hoyer is pushing for a weaker bill, but sources close to Hoyer insist that this isn't the case. One Hoyer source says that the committees are driving the legislation and that he hadn't even been briefed on its specifics until recently.

The source also claims that Hoyer's main goal is to get the House to pass a bill before the Senate comes out with a more moderate bill that will make it tougher politically for the House to do something significantly stronger. But we won't really know for sure exactly what Hoyer, the rest of the leadership, and the committees have in mind until we see the final product.

That's where things stand now. Expect a bill next week. Meanwhile, the progressive list of demands of the legislation is below:

We, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fully recognizing we live in a dangerous world but proud of, and deeply committed to, the values that have made the United States an exemplar for the world, affirm the following principles to guide consideration over the debate regarding surveillance of foreign intelligence. We hold that these principles represent the pillars by which America gives no quarter to terrorists who would do our country harm, while at the same time ensuring fidelity to the distinctively American commitment to the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and separation of powers.

1. It should be the policy of the United States that the objective of any authorized program of foreign intelligence surveillance must be to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but makes terrorists throughout the world feel insecure.

2. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress, the exclusivity of FISA was unambiguous. Legislation must reiterate current law that FISA is the exclusive means to authorize foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil.

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be modernized to accommodate new technologies and to make clear that foreign to foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.

4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.

5. Congress must have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected and the authority to require court orders when it becomes clear that a certain program or surveillance of a target is scooping up communications of U.S. persons.

6. Once the government has reason to believe that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons' communications.

7. Congress should not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual for helping the NSA spy illegally on innocent Americans. The availability of amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

8. Authorization to conduct foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The threats to America’s security and the liberties of its people will change over time and require constant vigilance by the people’s representatives in Congress.