Links to PATIOT Act Reauthorization vote.

[BigJerr]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The text of the Bill links.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---89

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---10

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)


Not Voting - 1
Inouye (D-HI)

[Sashimi]

Yay, go PA. *sigh*

[BigJerr]

Sashimi,

Not to get off topic but I asume you live in PA.

[Sashimi]

Thats what my location says. :lol:

Yes, right outside of Philadelphia.

[dr.strangelove]

I love NY.

[Sashimi]

And the real shame is that most of the Act is pretty decent and well thought out things from the Clinton administration. Making it easier for different levels of investigation to cooperate with each other instead of trying to trump each other with jurisdiction and pride. I think if they had given it two more months of thought we could ahve had an all around decent piece of legislation.

[BigJerr]

Great Americans


Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

You're ok. Inouye.

Not Voting - 1
Inouye (D-HI)

[YourMomma]

What will happen now that our terrorist comrades are not free to do there bidding?

[PWS]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


What will happen now that our terrorist comrades are not free to do there bidding?

[Sashimi]

I am going to sound naive I suppose but what is a "Freeper" is it a snyonym for inbred as your pic seems to suggest?

[BigJerr]

I am going to sound naive I suppose but what is a "Freeper" is it a snyonym for inbred as your pic seems to suggest?

It's someone from FreeRepublic. A very conservative website.

[Sashimi]

Thank you.

[The_Bammo]

Leahy disappointed in domestic spying

March 9, 2006

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

Vermont's Democratic U.S. Senator, Patrick Leahy, said Wednesday he is disappointed in a proposed compromise on the domestic surveillance program that makes it less likely there will be a full-blown investigation.

The legislation, an agreement between the Bush administration and Republican senators on the Intelligence Committee, is part of a continuing lack of congressional oversight of the presidency, Leahy said.

"This is the Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate refusing to do any real oversight over this president," Leahy said by telephone. "If he breaks the law then all he has to do is come by and tell a few people in Congress."

The legislation would establish a panel of lawmakers who will have access to some details about the program's operations. The Intelligence Committee also rejected a call for a broader review of the program, according to news reports.

Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been a vocal critic of the program, under which the National Security Administration has performed wiretaps without warrants on people within the United States thought to have contact with suspected terrorists overseas.

The Senate Judiciary Committee under its chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has been the only group in the Senate to try and get real information on the domestic surveillance program, Leahy said.

And even when U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came before that committee he did not provide full answers about the program, and was not under oath, Leahy said. That testimony was made worse by a letter Gonzales sent to the committee afterward contradicting some of what he said, Leahy added.

The attorney general's testimony and letter raise questions about whether other, as yet undiscovered, programs for surveillance without warrants exist, Leahy said.

As for the proposed legislation in the Intelligence Committee, Leahy said it was inadequate.

"It does absolutely nothing about illegal spying," he said. "The White House basically told them what to do and they did it. This is not oversight, this is not being a check and balance."

Calls to the office of Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, were not returned Wednesday.

According to news reports, Roberts said lawmakers had rejected confrontation in favor of compromise.

Vermont Republican Party Chairman James Barnett said Leahy appears more interested in politics than national security.

"What's important is that we allow the president to do his job of protecting the American people using all legal means, but given his complete distortion of the terrorist surveillance program and his politically motivated flip-flop on the Patriot Act, Sen. Leahy seems more interested in playing partisan politics with national security than having an honest debate," Barnett said.

Leahy said the efforts to fight terrorism can be done within laws requiring warrants for wiretaps.

"We all want to stop terrorism but we would kind of like everybody to follow the law," Leahy said. "Even the president, even this president, is not above the law."

[Only registered and activated users can see links]