The Feindgold amendment to S1510 (The Senate Anti-Terrorism Bill), which would have subjected LE requests for personal (medical, educational and library) and business records to a higher level of judicial scrutiny and stricter state provisions, was just tabled (defeated) by a vote of 89 to 8. Our only hope is in the House-Senate committee charged with working out differences between the two bills. steve
All three Feingold amendments have been killed by votes of about 90-10 each time. So much for that idea. I'm going to be writing tomorrow about the conference committee. I wouldn't be too optimistic about the prospects there. Face it, folks, Congress is now dysfunctional.* -Declan * Maybe it was before, but it's just so glaringly obvious now. On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 08:40:42PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The Feindgold amendment to S1510 (The Senate Anti-Terrorism Bill), which would have subjected LE requests for personal (medical, educational and library) and business records to a higher level of judicial scrutiny and stricter state provisions, was just tabled (defeated) by a vote of 89 to 8. Our only hope is in the House-Senate committee charged with working out differences between the two bills.
steve
At 09:20 PM 10/11/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Ah, I tuned in late and only caught the last one.
Yeah. The sequence went as follows, starting at 9 pm: 1. Feingold introduced amendment to the USA Act 2. Feingold, Wellstone, Cantwell spoke in favor of it 3. Just about everyone else led by Hatch, Leahy, Daschle opposed it 4. Daschle moved to table 5. Everyone voted to table 6. Goto Line 1 The votes were: 83-13 to table the trespasser snooping amendment 90-7 to table roving wiretap limits 89-8 to table subpoena limits Feingold did a reasonable enough job, but he did wimp out and not introduce the "secret search ban" amendment. Would have been good to have some debate on that. Debate ended around midnight. -Declan
As a mere Englishman, I'm not quite sure what "table" means in this context. My guess is that it means "put it on the agenda", i.e. fix a time to discuss it later, but that doesn't look right here, because you are saying that the amendments were rejected. Ken Brown Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 09:20 PM 10/11/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Ah, I tuned in late and only caught the last one.
Yeah. The sequence went as follows, starting at 9 pm: 1. Feingold introduced amendment to the USA Act 2. Feingold, Wellstone, Cantwell spoke in favor of it 3. Just about everyone else led by Hatch, Leahy, Daschle opposed it 4. Daschle moved to table 5. Everyone voted to table 6. Goto Line 1
The votes were: 83-13 to table the trespasser snooping amendment 90-7 to table roving wiretap limits 89-8 to table subpoena limits
Feingold did a reasonable enough job, but he did wimp out and not introduce the "secret search ban" amendment. Would have been good to have some debate on that. Debate ended around midnight.
-Declan
At 11:29 AM 10/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
As a mere Englishman, I'm not quite sure what "table" means in this context. My guess is that it means "put it on the agenda", i.e. fix a time to discuss it later, but that doesn't look right here, because you are saying that the amendments were rejected.
Ken Brown
Another example of such confusion would be a request to "knock me up". Has slightly different meanings in the two languages. DCF
At 11:29 AM 10/12/01 +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
As a mere Englishman, I'm not quite sure what "table" means in this context. My guess is that it means "put it on the agenda", i.e. fix a time to discuss it later, but that doesn't look right here, because you are saying that the amendments were rejected.
Ken Brown
One of the great conflicts between English and American. "Table" means to schedule for debate in British and to dump in American. Complicated by the fact that we do use the phrase to "put on the table" as you Brits do. DCF
on Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:55:25PM -0400, Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) wrote:
All three Feingold amendments have been killed by votes of about 90-10 each time. So much for that idea.
I'm going to be writing tomorrow about the conference committee. I wouldn't be too optimistic about the prospects there.
Face it, folks, Congress is now dysfunctional.*
-Declan * Maybe it was before, but it's just so glaringly obvious now.
Herblock thought so (thanks to Dan Gillmor): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/herblock/gallery/2.htm Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
Karsten M. Self -
Ken Brown -
Steve Schear