13 Senators Oppose Maneuver To Block Patriot Act Amendments

by jclifford

When I saw that the U.S. Senate had voted to table S. 1038, the legislation to extend the most extreme spying powers of the Patriot Act for four more years, I was confused. I thought that a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate had coalesced in support of the legislation. Wouldn’t a motion to table the legislation prevent the Senate from taking a final vote on the bill?
Actually, as The Hill explains, the motion to table the legislation yesterday was actually part of a complicated maneuver to pass the bill in rapid fashion, without full consideration of amendments. Senate leader Harry Reid cast aside the form of S. 1038 that had several proposed amendments attached to it, and then took the body of S. 1038 and linked it to a message from the House of Representatives, to which the amendments were unconnected.

The Hill’s analysis focuses on one of those amendments, introduced by Senator Rand Paul, which would prevent the Patriot Act from being used to seize records of gun purchases in particular. That amendment to the bill is just one of many, however, which were blocked from consideration as a result of Reid’s twist of Senate rules.

These amendments sought to use the extension to reform the Patriot Act. One, by Senator Paul, would have required the government, when seeking a National Security Letter to perform searches and seizures, to go to a court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and a judge’s certification that probable cause sufficient to gain a warrant has been established. Another of Senator Paul’s amendments would have required a district court to issue the equivalent of a search warrant before the seizure of financial records could take place.

Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden of Colorado submitted amendments as well. One amendment would have required that “lone wolf” spying powers, to authorize electronic surveillance without the constitutionally required identification of a particular person or place to be searched, could only target agents of foreign powers. Another of their amendments would have required the government to specify, for roving wiretaps and electronic surveillance, the identity of the target or the location of the target of the surveillance.
Senator Bernard Sanders offered an amendment to S. 1038 protecting libraries and bookstores from having their records seized without a search warrant. Senator Patrick Leahy offered an amendment that would have required the government to establish procedures to destroy or return all evidence gathered through the Patriot Act that is determined not to be relevant to the investigation, rather than keeping the evidence and using the information for other purposes.
All these amendments, and the reforms that they proposed, were blocked by yesterday evening’s vote to table S. 1038. Those who voted “Yea” to this motion were voting to prevent efforts to improve the Patriot Act by reducing its unconstitutional search and seizure powers.

Those who voted “Nay” weren’t necessarily trying to block the Patriot Act extension from renewal. They were voting to at least give reforms for the Patriot Act a fair hearing.
Only 13 senators voted “Nay”. They were:

Senator Mark Begich, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Dean Heller, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Ron Wyden

One of these senators, Jeff Merkley, rose to speak against Harry Reid’s move to squelch amendments to reform the Patriot Act. Merkley said,

“There is no question that every Member of this Chamber has an enormous sense of responsibility in the security of our Nation. In that sense, there is significant feeling on every person’s part that we need to enable our intelligence services, our military, to do the necessary work to protect our Nation.

But that does not mean we should avoid having a debate about whether the PATRIOT Act, as written today, without an amendment, rolls over the top of the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

We can have both personal privacy and a high standard, as set out in the fourth amendment, for the seizure of papers and security. Those two things are not at war with each other. We have had two centuries in this Nation of embracing the twins of personal privacy and security. We have made that work. We can continue to make it work.
I rise in protest about the process unfolding in the Senate in which amendments will not be presented and will not be debated. I rise to say the fourth amendment matters; that it sets a significant standard against unreasonable seizures and searches, and that the PATRIOT Act, as written, does not provide a clear implementation of the fourth amendment, a clear protection of the fourth amendment.”

Offshore Oil Drilling after Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill — No New Safeguards, GOP Push for Less Oversight

One of the worst environmental disasters in history struck one year ago today — the “Deepwater Horizon oil spill,” or “BP oil spill.” Haven’t kept up with the details of offshore oil drilling much lately and curious where things stand? Well, I can’t say that we’ve learned from our lesson.

While no legislation has been passed to make offshore oil drilling safer, “the House Natural Resources Committee pushed forward three bills to expand offshore drilling and reduce safeguards,” Frances  Beinecke of the Natrual Resource Defense Council (NRDC), who served on the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, writes.

Seriously, let’s make it easier to have another oil spill catastrophe? This is what the “House Natural Resources Committee” wants? Yes, the U.S. has been hijacked by political extremists who don’t understand the government’s role in ensuring a safe and livable environment.
More from Beinecke:

These bills would allow big oil companies to sidestep proper environmental analysis, rush permits and drill virtually anywhere off the U.S. coastline.

Have we learned nothing from the largest peacetime oil spill in history? Eleven men died in that disaster. More than 170 million gallons of Louisiana crude spewed into the water, and 1,053 miles of shoreline got oiled.

The impacts have been devastating. Gulf Coast fishermen lost $62 million in dockside sales because of the spill, while tourist businesses lost $1.5 billion in earnings. Oil remains in marshes and underwater plumes, and it will take years to determine the ecological damage.

Yet, it’s more important that oil companies be left alone to do what they wish wherever they wish.
The National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling that Beinecke found, after an “exhaustive review of the evidence” that “the root cause of the spill was systemic failure in industry management and government oversight.” Of course it was.

Completely ridiculous that these supposed leaders of our country are interested in ignoring the findings, the need for change, and are actually pushing for further deregulation in this dangerous arena.

Will less regulation of offshore oil drilling help the U.S. become more energy independent? Not enough that anyone would even notice. This is one of the least effective ways of pushing for energy independence and doesn’t get at the root of our problem at all. My grandfather was the Chief Excavation Geologist for Exxon for the U.S. (not including Alaska or California) before he retired — the guy in charge of finding oil. He mentioned a couple years ago that we’ve just gotten spoiled, that we don’t have the oil available to support our current demand.

Here’s more on that from Beinecke as well.

Turning back the clock on offshore drilling will do little to relieve America’s oil addiction.
According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, drilling in America’s previously closed ocean areas “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production…before 2030.” Even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market …any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

The U.S. cannot drill its way out of oil dependence. We can, however, turn to a host of clean energy solutions that could cut our oil imports almost in half in just 14 years. We don’t have to wait for technological breakthroughs to get started. Things like cleaner cars, more transportation options, high speed rail, and sustainable, homegrown fuels already exist.

Seriously, this is the route we need to go down. We don’t live in caves any more. We found a better option. We can find a better option for our energy supply as well (we already have). Increasing the risk of workers, the environment, and the whole world in order to try to live on an energy source of the past makes no sense (unless you are a Congressman bought by an oil industry trying to increase its profits for a few more years and don’t have any concern for what’s actually best for the American people).