Home Front: Politix |
New GOP star on track to defeat Dem legend Russ Feingold |
2010-11-01 |
[Washington Examiner] Here in Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, a businessman who has never before run for public office, appears poised to pick up a Senate seat for Republicans, defeating Democratic legend Russell Feingold and becoming the first GOP senator elected from the state since 1986. |
Link |
-Lurid Crime Tales- |
US wants Viktor Bout |
2010-08-20 |
[Straits Times] THE United States pressed Thailand on Thursday to hand over alleged Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, ahead of a final Thai ruling on the US extradition request for the so-called 'Merchant of Death'. The US State Department called in Thai Ambassador Don Pramudwinai this week 'to emphasise that this is of the highest priority of the United States', department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters. 'We believe that we've presented significant evidence to justify his extradition to the United States,' said Mr Crowley, adding: 'We think we've made our case, and we'll see what the judgment of the court is.' US lawmakers, meanwhile, urged the ambassador to let authorities in Bangkok know that rejecting the request would harm ties with Washington and said the kingdom's judiciary handling of the case had not been 'fair and transparent.' The lawmakers complained that they had only learned through Bout's lawyer and the media that a Thai appeals court would decide on Friday whether to send the accused arms trafficker to the United States to face terrorism charges. 'We find the potential release of a man responsible for countless deaths of innocents in Africa and elsewhere simply astounding,' said the group, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman, a Democrat. 'More so as there is little doubt that he would return to his deadly trade, arming those targeting US and Thai interests around the globe,' they said in a letter delivered to the Thai embassy on Wednesday. Republican Representative Ed Royce's office released the letter, which was also signed by Democratic Senator Russell Feingold and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on Berman's committee. Bout, said to have inspired the Hollywood film Lord Of War starring Nicolas Cage, has been fighting extradition since his March 2008 arrest in Bangkok on charges of peddling weapons around the world, including to Al-Qaeda. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Senate may drop public option |
2009-12-10 |
Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health-care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber. Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created. In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers. The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats -- five liberals and five moderates -- appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to "overcome a real problem that we had" and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas. "Not everyone is going to agree with every piece," Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama's most important domestic initiative, he smiled. "The answer's yes," he said. According to a Democrat briefed on the talks, the deal represents only an agreement among the 10 negotiators to send the new package to congressional budget analysts, not an agreement to support its elements. One of the negotiators, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), quickly issued a statement criticizing the deal. "While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach," he said. He added, however, that he will base his vote "on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I think the bill is good for Wisconsin." Democrats must also win the approval of several key lawmakers who have not been involved in the talks, including Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), the only Republican who has voted in favor of the Democratic health initiative. If the Senate approves the agreement, it will face a huge obstacle in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has fought hard to preserve a public plan in the face of opposition from House moderates. If the deal holds, it will represent a major breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues of the health-care debate, settling a dispute between moderates wary of excessive government intrusion into the private sector and liberals determined to create a strong competitor able to curb the most egregious abuses in the private insurance industry. "It may be different from what was previously included in the bill," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, "but it accomplishes the same goals as a so-called public option." |
Link |
Afghanistan |
Dems Back Away from O's War Funding |
2009-11-26 |
President Obama will reveal his new Afghanistan war strategy in a speech Tuesday evening to cadets at West Point, but his most skeptical audience is likely to be the powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill who oppose a troop buildup. Top Democrats have made it clear to Obama that he will not receive a friendly reception should he announce what is considered the leading option: sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The legislators have indicated that a request for more money to finance a beefed-up war effort will be met with frustration and, perhaps, a demand to raise taxes. You mean, more than Obamacare? Only need to raise taxes if we have a military? "Trillions for health care! Not one red cent for self-defense!" On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described what she called "serious unrest" in her caucus over the prospect of another vote to finance billions of dollars for an expanded war. It is, she said, the most difficult vote she can ask of the members of her party. "We need to know what the mission is, how this is further protecting the American people and is this the best way to do that, especially at a time when there's such serious economic issues here at home," she told bloggers on a Tuesday conference call. But Obamacare will improve the economy? Cap and trade? In June, Pelosi strong-armed anti-war Democrats into voting for a $100 billion measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During an interview in July, she recounted her appeal to the lawmakers: "Will you change your mind and one more time vote for war funding?" She also promised not to ask again. "This is the very last time," she told them. Now, barely five months later, Pelosi and Obama will soon have to go back to the war well, even as they seek difficult votes from the same Democrats on health-care reform, climate change legislation and regulation of the financial industry. Senior aides said the president's first task will be to seek the understanding of an uneasy nation for his new approach to a war that began eight years ago. Among the reassurances he will offer, they said, is a promise that an end is in sight. "We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We're not going to be there another eight or nine years," Gibbs said. Germany and Japan - 64 years; Korea 59 years, but we got out of Vietnam in way less. But members of the party's most liberal wing, such as Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), have expressed serious doubts about the overall direction of the president's strategy. "Devoting billions more dollars and tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan is not likely to significantly improve conditions in that country, and it will not help - and could even hurt - our efforts to dismantle al-Qaeda's global network with safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and elsewhere," Feingold said. Even the Democratic Party's more hawkish lawmakers, such as Sen. Carl M. Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, have said they have deep reservations about the wisdom of a troop buildup. Kerry has said he is "very wary of it because of past experience and because of some of the challenges that I see." Levin has insisted that more be done to train Afghan troops Doing nothing is better than not doing it my way. I think there is more at the link, but I'm tired. So tired. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT | |
Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border | |
2008-08-03 | |
Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "The policies . . . are truly alarming," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government's border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.
| |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
An Interview with James Abourezk |
2006-04-19 |
....To put an end to terrorism, one must put an end to illegal occupations. KZ: How do you view your old place of employment, the U.S. Senate, is it responding to the needs of the American people? If not, why not? JA: It is not. There are only three or so U.S. Senators who are really performing the job as Senators Ted Kennedy, Russell Feingold and Bob Byrd. Occasionally we hear good things coming from Richard Durbin, but beyond those, there is nothing but ditto to whatever the Bush Administration wants. "Performing the job" ... as in a dog relieving himself. Entire piece of drivel at the link, let the "ditto" continue. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Democratic Senators Flee Feingold's Stink Bomb |
2006-03-15 |
Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.![]() "I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.). "Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire. In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party. So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said. Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0." Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states. Hence the elaborate efforts to avoid comment. Five Democratic senators called a news conference yesterday to talk about the Bush budget's "dangerously irresponsible priorities" -- but three of them fled the room before allowing questions. The other two were stuck. "Was it a good idea for Senator Feingold to bring up this resolution?" came the first question, from CNN's Ed Henry. "He brings up some very important issues," Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) ventured. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix | |||||||
Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure | |||||||
2006-03-14 | |||||||
![]() A day of tough, election-year talk between Feingold and Vice President Dick Cheney ended with Senate leaders sending the matter to the Judiciary Committee. ``I look forward to a full hearing, debate and vote in committee on this important matter,'' Feingold said in a statement late Monday. ``If the Committee fails to consider the resolution expeditiously, I will ask that there be a vote in the full Senate.''
Feingold, a potential presidential candidate, said on the Senate floor, ``The president has violated the law and Congress must respond.''
| |||||||
Link |
-Short Attention Span Theater- |
Senator (burp) Kennedy Bestows "Profile in Courage" Award to Murtha |
2006-03-09 |
![]() Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Vietnam veteran who has denounced the war in Iraq, was named a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Thursday. Alberto Mora, a former Navy general counsel who warned Pentagon officials that U.S. policies dealing with terror detainees could invite abuse, also will receive the award from the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library Foundation. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, was recognized "for the difficult and courageous decision of conscience he made in November 2005, when he reversed his support for the Iraq war and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict," the foundation said in a statement. Mora was honored for "waging a 2 1/2-year behind-the-scenes battle with Pentagon brass and civilian leaders over U.S. military policy regarding the treatment of detainees held by the United States as part of the war on terror," the foundation said. The award, created in 1989 and named for Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, is presented annually to public servants who have withstood strong opposition while fighting for their beliefs. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) and Caroline Kennedy, the late president's daughter, will present the awards May 22 at the library. Murtha and Mora "exemplify the kind of courage my father admired most," Caroline Kennedy said in a statement. Past recipients include President Ford, Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko and Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Patriot Act renewed |
2006-03-08 |
The House renewed the USA Patriot Act in a cliffhanger vote Tuesday night, extending a centerpiece of the war on terrorism at President Bush's urging after months of political combat over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of potential terrorists. Bush, forced by filibuster to accept new curbs on law enforcement investigations, is expected to sign the legislation before 16 provisions of the 2001 law expire on Friday. The vote was 280-138, just two more than needed under special rules that required a two-thirds majority. The close vote caught senior Republican aides in both chambers by surprise. Nonetheless, the vote marked a political victory for Bush and will allow congressional Republicans facing midterm elections this year to continue touting a tough-on-terror stance. Bush's approval ratings have suffered in recent months after revelations that he had authorized secret, warrantless wiretapping of Americans. That issue helped fuel a two-month Senate filibuster that forced the White House to accept some new restrictions on information gathered in terrorism probes. Republicans on Tuesday declared the legislative war won, saying the renewal of the act's 16 provisions along with new curbs on government investigatory power will help law enforcement prevent terrorists from striking. "Intense congressional and public scrutiny has not produced a single substantiated claim that the Patriot Act has been misused to violate Americans' civil liberties," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "Opponents of the legislation have relied upon exaggeration and hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and success." "The president looks forward to signing the bill into law," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. But the debate over the balance between a strong war against terrorists and civil liberties protections is far from over. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the domestic wiretapping program. Additionally, Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chief author of the Patriot Act renewal, has introduced a new measure "to provide extra protections that better comport with my sensitivity of civil rights." Despite its passage the Patriot Act still has staunch congressional opponents who protested it by voting 'no' even on the part of the bill that would add new civil rights protections. During the Senate's final debate last week, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said he was voting 'no' because the new protections for Americans were so modest they were almost meaningless. Such objections echoed during the House debate Tuesday, where the measure was supported by 214 Republicans and 66 Democrats and opposed by 13 Republicans, 124 Democrats and one Independent. "I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers only a superficial reform that will have little if any impact on safeguarding our civil liberties," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. For now, Bush will be signing a package on which members of both chambers of Congress and the president can agree. The package renews 16 expiring provisions of the original Patriot Act, including one that allows federal officials to obtain "tangible items" like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores, for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations. Other provisions would clarify that foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers should share information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with counterparts in domestic law enforcement agencies. Forced by Feingold's filibuster, Congress and the White House have agreed to new curbs on the Patriot Act's powers. These restrictions would: Give recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone. Eliminate a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators. Clarify that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists. The legislation also takes aim at the distribution and use of methamphetamine by limiting the supply of a key ingredient found in everyday cold and allergy medicines. Yet another provision is designed to strengthen port security by imposing strict punishments on crew members who impede or mislead law enforcement officers trying to board their ships. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Dems Conflicted on 'Message' |
2006-03-07 |
Oh, that I had more time to comment this morning! News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own. Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto by November 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals. But some Democrats protested that the release date was too early, so they put it off until January. The new date slipped twice again, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) says the document will be unveiled in "a matter of weeks." Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party in trying to seize control of the House and Senate after more than a decade of almost unbroken minority status. Lawmakers and strategists have complained about erratic or uncertain leadership and repeated delays in resolving important issues. The conflict goes well beyond Capitol Hill. The failure of congressional leaders to deliver a clear message has left some Democratic governors deeply frustrated and at odds with Washington Democrats over strategy. Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and the Republicans, by jumping on debacles such as the administration's handling of the Dubai port deal -- or stress their own priorities and values. There is no agreement on whether to try to nationalize the congressional campaign with a blueprint or "contract" with voters, as the Republicans did successfully in 1994, or to keep the races more local in tone. And the party is still divided over the war in Iraq: Some Democrats, including Pelosi, call for a phased withdrawal; many others back a longer-term military and economic commitment. "It could be a great year for Democrats," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), but the party must present a more moderate face and distinguish itself more clearly from the GOP on issues such as ethics. "The comment I hear is 'I'd really like to vote for you guys, but I can't stand the folks I see on TV,' " Cooper said in a telephone interview from Nashville. On issues such as explaining that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's work "was a 110 percent Republican operation," Cooper said, "we're not making nearly as much headway as we should." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal. The Democratic leaders in Congress -- Pelosi and Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- are the party's chief strategists and architects of the agenda, which they view as a way to market party ideas on energy, health care, education and other issues. They have held countless meetings to construct the right list, consulting with governors, mayors and just about every Democratic adviser in town. "By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand," Reid said. But many in the party have their doubts. On Feb. 27, Reid and Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states? According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' " Others, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) -- who head the Senate and House campaign efforts -- believe the November election will turn mainly on how voters view Republicans. Schumer is leading the Democratic attack on the port deal, excoriating the administration for jeopardizing national security -- a realm in which Republicans have held the advantage with voters. He and Emanuel have sought to delay the agenda's release to allow Democratic attacks to hold the stage with minimum distraction. "When you're in the opposition, you both propose and oppose," Emanuel said. "But fundamentally, this is going to be a referendum on [Republican] stewardship." Also dividing Democratic strategists is the question of what lessons to take from the Republican landslide of 1994, when the GOP won the Senate and picked up 54 House seats, wiping out 40 years of Democratic rule. Some Democrats associate that breakthrough with the House Republicans' "Contract With America," a list of proposals on policy and government. "We should take a page from their book" and have "an overarching theme" similar to the 1994 contract, said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.). Many of his colleagues agree, but not Reid. "We're not going to do a 'Contract With America,' " Reid said in an interview. He noted that the GOP document received scant attention when it was presented a few weeks before the 1994 election, and political historians say it played a minor role in the outcome. "There's a great mythology about the contract," Reid said. Even the party's five-word 2006 motto has preoccupied congressional Democrats for months. "We had meetings where senators offered suggestions," Reid said. "We had focus groups. We worked hard on that. . . . It's a long, slow, arduous process." That slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect. Governors privately scoff at the slogan. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. "They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That's all good," said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. "The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we're against but what we're for. That's the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level." Reid spokesman Jim Manley said congressional Democrats have spent the past year redefining the debates over terrorism and Iraq and have prepared the ground for a shift to a more positive message that will focus on energy, health care and homeland security, all areas in which the governors would concur, he predicted. "We've had an unprecedented level of cooperation," he said. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly added: "At the end of the day, I think everyone will be on board." Perhaps the Democrats' greatest dilemma is how to respond to the Iraq war. It looms as the biggest question mark over Bush's administration and the Republican lawmakers who have backed him on the conflict almost without question. Congressional Democrats have been split over the war since 2002, when many voted to authorize military action. The ground shifted last November when Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a leading Democratic voice on military matters, called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn as soon as possible. Two weeks later, Pelosi endorsed his stance. Although Pelosi said she was not speaking for her caucus, some colleagues complained that she was handing Republicans a gift by enabling them to tag Democrats as soft on terrorism and forcing Democratic candidates to explain whether they agreed with their House leader. There is little question that the political landscape looks promising for Democrats. A Feb. 9 poll by the Pew Research Center found that Democrats lead Republicans 50 to 41 percent in a generic ballot. But congressional Democrats have some key deficiencies. For instance, they lack the hard-charging, charismatic figurehead that Gingrich represented for the House GOP in 1994. But the Democrats have an abundance of presidential hopefuls, and their agendas sometimes differ from those of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Emanuel. For instance, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) tried to filibuster the renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a move opposed by most of his Senate colleagues, including Reid. Kerry (Mass.) led an unsuccessful filibuster attempt against Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. The best-known Democrat is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), whose plans for a 2008 presidential bid leave many of her colleagues wary of how her famous but divisive presence might affect them. "There are lots of skeptics," Schumer conceded. But the polls look better and better, he stressed. "There may be some inside-the-Beltway babble, but it's not affecting the voters," said Schumer, who wants the agenda delayed again -- until summer. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT | |
Congress Extends Patriot Act Five Weeks | |
2006-02-03 | |
![]() Sixteen provisions of the 2001 law were to have expired last Dec. 31, but Congress extended them until Friday after Democrats and a handful of Senate Republicans demanded an avenue of appeals when the FBI makes demands for people's financial and other private records. The Senate voted 95-1 Thursday night to extend the current law unchanged through March 10 and give negotiators more time to reach a deal. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., a longtime opponent of the Patriot Act, cast the sole vote against the extension. The House passed it Wednesday. Several Republican and Democratic officials involved in negotiations said that agreements had been reached on several issues but that others needed more time. Earlier in the week, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of the negotiators who helped block the act's renewal last year, told reporters almost all of his concerns had been worked out with the White House. He and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., want parts of the act to be rewritten in several areas, including giving banks, libraries and Internet service providers the right to appeal when the FBI seeks financial and other records of their customers and clients.
The law makes it easier for federal agents to gather and share information in terrorism investigations, install wiretaps and conduct secret searches of households and businesses. At issue are 16 provisions that Congress wanted reviewed and renewed by the end of last year. | |
Link |