Feingold amendment

Ken Brown k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk
Fri Oct 12 03:29:39 PDT 2001


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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list