WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives failed Tuesday to extend the life of three surveillance tools that are crucial to the United States' post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law, a slipup for the new Republican leaders who miscalculated the level of opposition.

The House voted 277-148 to keep the three provisions of the USA Patriot Act on the books until Dec. 8. Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure that required 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 like those on Sept. 11, 2001, 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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...litics-capitol_hill/
**********************************************************************************
The original side that wanted it in total, now think some of it goes to far?
And if I remember right, wasn't The Patriot Act one of those deals where it was passed to find out what was in it, as no one actually read it before the vote?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-08-2011).]

quote wasn't that law passed to find out what was in it? (paraphrased)

No, that was Obamacare.

The "Patriot Act" was supposed to be a short term measure, it was not expected to be a non expiring law. They knew what was in the P.A. its just many people concluded that it would erode civil liberties as well as being a tool to use against the taliban.

If you can't sleep or are that interested, here is the bill in full: http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

It is hard to determine how long the final version of the USA PATRIOT Act was available prior to its consideration. By all measures, it was not available to the public and was barely made available to members of Congress. As one of the primary examples of bills that were rushed through Congress, there was little chance that the PATRIOT Act wouldn't be a major Read the Bill case study.

In the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush sought new legal tools to fight terrorism and ward off future attacks. The first move to introduce new tools and expand the federal government’s powers took the form of the USA PATRIOT Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on October 23, 2001.

Commonly known as the PATRIOT Act, the bill contained provisions aimed at expanding the federal government’s ability to gather intelligence, engage in domestic surveillance and secret searches and detain immigrants with little restraint. The provisions in the PATRIOT Act became immediately controversial, as civil liberties groups argued that these provisions gutted constitutional protections provided to citizens for generations.

The bill was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on October 23, the same day it was introduced. Many Democrats expressed extreme displeasure over the hurried nature of the process. Rep. Bobby Scott said, “I think it is appropriate to comment on the process by which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported and deliberated on in the Committee on the Judiciary. It came to us late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the bill to see what is in it since we have been out of our offices.” Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, declared, “we are now debating at this hour of night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote on available to Members on this side of the aisle.” Conyers was later famously pictured in the Michael Moore documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” explaining that no lawmaker reads all the bills in Congress. The bill passed on October 24 by a vote of 357-66.

The Senate passed the bill the very next day and the president signed the bill on October 26, 2001.

quote The original side that wanted it in total, now think some of it goes to far?

Nope--it required 2/3 vote, which would mean every Republican would have had to vote to retain the measures, PLUS, bring some democrats along too. Only 26 Republicans voted to toss the it, while virtually every democrat did vote to let it expire.

quote But it fell short of the required two-thirds after 26 Republicans bucked their leadership, eight of them freshman lawmakers elected in November's midterm elections. With most Democrats opposing the extension, the final tally was 277 members in favor of extension, and 148 opposed.

Most Republicans voted to extend it--most Democrats voted not to extend it.
There are 435 Representatives in the House. 2/3 of those would =290.
There are only 242 Republicans in the house. 193 Democrats. IOW, far and away, the Republicans voted to extend PA. Far and away, Dems voted not to. The Republicans, since they don't HAVE 290 members in the House, couldn't get a 2/3 majority.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-08-2011).]