U.S. House of Representatives

Patriot Act extensions defeated in the House

Three provisions set to expire at the end of the month fell just seven votes short of passage

The House on Tuesday failed to extend the life of three surveillance tools that are key to the nation’s post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law, a slipup for the new Republican leadership that miscalculated the level of opposition.

The three provisions, set to expire Feb. 28, make it easier for federal authorities to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorism suspects. One of them, the “lone wolf” provision, allows the government to survey foreign terrorism suspects even if they don’t have known ties to a terrorist group. Another, the “library records provision,” gives the FBI court-approved access to “any tangible thing” relevant to a terrorism investigation. The last deals with court-approved roving wiretaps.

The House voted 277-148 to keep the three provisions of the USA Patriot Act on the books until Dec. 8. But Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds majority, and the vote was seven short of reaching that level.

The Republicans, who took over the House last month, lost 26 of their own members, adding to the 122 Democrats who voted against it. Supporters say the three measures are vital to preventing another terrorist attack, but critics say they infringe on civil liberties. They appealed to the antipathy that newer and more conservative Republicans hold for big government invasions of individual privacy.

Earlier on Tuesday, Republicans also pulled a bill from the floor because of dissatisfaction about extending trade benefits for three South American countries while continuing a program that helps retrain Americans who lose their jobs to foreign competition.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the former Judiciary Committee chairman who authored the 2001 Patriot Act, urged his colleagues to support the extensions, saying they were needed as a stopgap until permanent statutes could be agreed upon.

“The terrorist threat has not subsided and will not expire, and neither should our national security laws,” he said.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said Republican supporters of the tea party movement should show their opposition to big government by joining Democrats in opposing the measure.

“How about the Patriot Act, which has the broadest reach and the deepest reach of government to our daily lives?” he asked.

Kucinich also cited a report that the FBI has conducted thousands of warrantless searches using so-called “national security letters.” These letters are a form of subpoena the FBI and other agencies use to demand records, and they are not subject to judicial oversight.

The defeat means that Republicans may have to bring the bill back to the floor under regular procedures that only require a majority for passage but allow for amendments.

The House had pushed for a nine-month extension to give lawmakers more time to come up with an approach that would give the measures permanent legal status. The Senate is considering longer-range ideas.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., last month introduced legislation that would extend the three provisions through 2013 while improving oversight of intelligence-gathering tools. Leahy would also phase out, at the end of 2013, the use of national security letters, FBI demands for information that do not need a judge’s approval.

The Senate also has on its legislative calendar a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would reauthorize the three measures through 2013 and a Republican proposal that would make them permanent.

The White House, in a statement, said it did not object to the House bill but “would strongly prefer” extending the provisions to the end of 2013, saying that “provides the necessary certainty and predictability that our nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies require.”

Leahy, who introduced a nearly identical bill last year that the Senate did not take up, said in December that he had received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder saying that the Justice Department was implementing several oversight and civil liberties measures included in his legislation.

Those included requirements that the government show relevance to an authorized investigation when seeking library or bookseller records, and similarly that the FBI show that information it is seeking with a national security letter is relevant to an investigation.

Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was “glad to see there is bipartisan opposition to the Patriot Act 10 years later.” The ACLU is a strong opponent of the three provisions, saying they lack proper and fundamental privacy safeguards.

“There need to be sunsets on the bill after that in order to have adequate accountability and oversight,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told the LA Times. “Until sunsets come up, it is often difficult to get the answers we need to do necessary oversight to avoid abuses.” 

GOP cunningly defeats our plan to ban God from national motto

Our grand liberal conspiracy to erase religion from the public square loses again!

(Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Remember how all of us liberals got together recently and secretly plotted to somehow remove “In God We Trust” as America’s national motto? And remember how the final stage of our awesome plan was just about to be implemented, and not a single Real American knew of it? Bad news, liberals: House Republicans caught wind of our plot and jumped into action, scheduling a vote affirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto this evening. This bill, addressing perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, will likely be passed some time after 6:30 p.m. Eastern time.

Thankfully, as befits such a momentous and serious piece of legislation, the House has been debating the measure basically all day.

The Republican sponsor of a resolution reaffirming that “In God We Trust” is the national motto of the U.S. said his legislation is needed because President Obama and other public officials often forget that this is the country’s motto.

“Unfortunately, there are a number of public officials who forget what the national motto is, whether intentionally or unintentionally,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said in late Tuesday afternoon debate in the House. “There are those who become confused as to whether or not it can still be placed on our buildings, whether it can be placed in our school classrooms.

Hm, yes, a very good point, lots of people do forget that “In God We Trust” is our national motto. That’s more true than ever these days, when “handling money” has become an increasingly rare occurrence for millions of Americans.

This whole Hill article is an absolutely perfect piece of writing, possibly the best humor writing of the year.

The only Democrat who spoke — the one, sole Democrat who bothered to point out what the House of Representatives was spending its time on today — was Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. (“Nadler stressed that the national motto is not under attack, and said the resolution appears to be an attempt by Republicans to look more religious that others.”)

Foiled again! But let’s see how these quick-thinking Republicans deal with the liberal plot to force children to take “Winter Vacations” from school this year!

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

John Boehner totally owned Barack Obama on the phone, according to Boehner

House Speaker releases amusingly self-congratulatory account of phone call with the president to the press

House Speaker John Boehner (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

John Boehner wants everyone to know that he gave the president what-for yesterday. Boehner is a fairly ineffectual House Speaker who has on multiple occasions held important votes that he has lost embarrassingly. But while he may not be able to control his caucus, he can certainly let everyone know that he yelled at Barack Obama. That’s why the Speaker’s office released “an unusually detailed account” of his phone conversation with the president to the press.

The president had called Boehner to congratulate him on passing those pointless trade agreements. But Boehner wanted to talk about how Obama had accused the GOP of not having a jobs plan. That won’t fly with hard-charging House Speaker John Boehner! According to Boehner’s summary of how cool and in control he was on the phone, Boehner had no time for these congratulations. “I want to make sure you have all the facts,” Boehner said, according to Boehner:

“The speaker told the president that when he sent his jobs plan to the Hill, Republicans pledged to give it consideration, and have done so,” the release stated. “The president was reminded of a memo written by GOP leaders outlining the specific areas where they believe common ground can be found. The Speaker also noted that a number of the president’s ideas have already been acted on in the House, including a veterans hiring bill, trade agreements, and a three percent withholding bill approved by the Ways & Means Committee today that will be considered on the House floor this month.”

According to Boehner’s account of the call, Boehner then put on sunglasses and got on a motorcycle. Also he was smoking the whole time, coolly. Then Boehner continued not holding votes on anything important while Eric Cantor repeatedly and blatantly undermined him to the press and the most conservative members of their caucus.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

House Republicans still fighting disaster relief funding

Updated: The war against FEMA funding could end in a government shutdown

Harry Reid and John Boehner

[UPDATED BELOW] There have been a lot of natural disasters lately, all over the country, and FEMA is basically out of money. Congress is going to appropriate more money for FEMA, probably, but Democrats want to give FEMA a few extra billion dollars than Republicans do, and Republicans want to “offset” all FEMA funding by defunding Democratic legislative priorities. (This is more about “spite” than “fiscal responsibility,” in other words.) There is also the possibility that this will end in another government shutdown, because Congress refuses to do anything unless the consequences of not doing something are incredibly and immediately dire, these days.

The Republicans in the House are likely to pass a continuing resolution keeping government running for the time being that includes $3.7 billion in offset funding for disaster aid. The Senate’s measure contained $6.9 billion. The latest news is that Rep. Louise Slaughter failed to get the Democratic proposal into the resolution, making it likely that either the House will fail the pass the resolution (many Republicans don’t support it because it doesn’t cut enough spending), increasing the risk of shutdown, or the Senate will stay in session next week and pass it with more disaster aid, forcing it back to the House, where it could fail again.

This is a great way to fund a government, right?

I imagine that the GOP is betting that obstructionism and a potential shutdown will be blamed on “Congress,” generically, and they have learned that they can absorb that hatred and turn it into voter cynicism that leads to increased support for conservatives who hate the government. Reid and the Democrats, meanwhile, will probably cave at the last second to avoid a shutdown. And everyone will say, “oh dear, what is wrong with Washington,” and the answer to that question will remain “Eric Cantor.”

UPDATE: Well, the other problem is “John Boehner,” who is just very bad at his job. The continuing resolution failed 195-230, with Democrats holding out due to the FEMA funding mess and dozens of Republicans voting no because Boehner has no control over them.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Professional “voter fraud” troll now preemptively predicting fake voter fraud

A former Bush lawyer with a history of hyping up phony fraud threats sounds the alarm on tomorrow's NY-9 election

Hans A. von Spakovsky

Hans A. von Spakovsky wants you to know that if Democrat David Weprin pulls it out and wins the special election tomorrow for the congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, Weprin will have won this longtime Democratic district through voter fraud. So, you know, just be prepared!

Polls show Republican Bob Turner slightly leading, so obviously any result other than a Turner victory means ACORN paid homeless people to vote 100 times under false names. “Will [close polls] tempt some locals to resort to the kind of voter fraud that Kings County and Brooklyn are infamous for?” asks former Fulton County, Georgia Republican Party head Hans A. von Spakovsky, who is apparently unaware that “Kings County and Brooklyn” is redundant.

Spakovsky suspects imminent voter fraud because some people listed on the registration rolls have moved or died:

A source within the Turner camp tells me the campaign sent a letter and campaign literature to all the voters on the permanent list maintained by the Board of Elections who are automatically mailed absentee ballots. They have received hundreds of pieces of returned mail marked “address unknown” or “return to sender” and at least five marked “deceased.”

ACORN!!!

“Voter fraud,” as Matthew Vadum recently explained, is a phony threat hyped by Republican operatives in order to whip up support for rules making it more difficult for poor people, minorities, and other traditional Democratic constituencies to vote. There’s the lowbrow form of “voter fraud” trolling — screeching conspiratorial nonsense about ACORN — and there’s the highbrow kind, practiced most expertly by former Justice Department attorney and Federal Election Commission member Hans A. von Spakovsky.

In classic George W. Bush administration form, von Spakovsky was a Civil Rights division lawyer who hated enforcing civil rights laws and an FEC advisor who hated election laws. His sole, driving concern was doing everything in his power to help the Republican party. Now von Spakovsky, a prime mover behind the politicization of Bush’s Justice Department, spends much of his time accusing the Obama administration of politicizing the Justice Department.

In all his years of attempting to prove that poor people voting too many times is a widespread problem, von Spakovsky has never managed to find any example of documented vote fraud (as opposed to “registration fraud,” which doesn’t actually affect elections) that happened more recently than 1982.

Concerns about “voter fraud” are a fig leaf for anti-democratic restrictions on voting by undesirable populations. If the Democrat does win tomorrow, Republicans have already invented a conspiracy theory explaining why.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

9/11 resolution passes House, Congress clearly no longer broken

Congress gets back to work, passes a non-binding resolution, gets back off work

(Credit: Dwight Nadig)

Barack Obama stood before a joint session of the United States Congress yesterday and implored them to put aside partisan gridlock and get back to passing desperately needed legislation, to help heal an ailing nation. And Congress listened. Today, after unanimous consent that the bill be discharged from all committees, the House passed, by voice vote, a vital resolution reminding everyone that it’s almost the 10th anniversary of 9/11. America’s back!

Many people had clearly almost forgotten that the anniversary was almost at hand, and those who remembered were obviously unsure whether or not our elected officials support the troops and hate terrorists. Now we have our answer.

The resolution reasserts the House’s commitment to “opposing violent extremism arrayed against American interests and to providing the United States military, intelligence and law enforcement communities with the resources and support to do so effectively and safely.”

Good. That’s cleared up. The House does not support violent extremism. And it turns out that it’s really easy to just decide to hold votes on things, and then vote for them? Who knew.

The Senate did not have a 9/11 vote today, though, presumably because Richard Shelby won’t do anything until he gets another billion dollar earmark for a defense contractor.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 54 in U.S. House of Representatives