Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My friends at DownsizeDC point out something I've not seen reported anywhere else, that the sudden and unexpected passage of a bill extending several provisions of the Patriot Act for another year was accomplished through nefarious means.
Last week, Congress voted to extend three provisions of the so-called U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act (aka Patriot Act) for another year.You can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll067.xml
But if you do that you'll think we've sent you to the wrong link. You'll see that the title on the bill is "Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act."
And they're right. That is exactly what the bill is called on that page. So how did a Patriot Act reauthorization end up in a Medicare bill? Turns out it's not a Medicare bill at all anymore, just a shell for a Patriot Act bill:
You see, H.R. 3961 originally started with that title and subject, and it passed the House in November. Then, this past Wednesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid ripped the guts out of the bill and replaced it with the Patriot extensions. The Senate then passed that version of the bill and sent it back to the House, where it was approved Thursday night.Now, you may be asking, where's the link to the Senate roll call vote?
Well, there isn't one. The bill passed by Unanimous Consent, which means a voice vote.
Which raises one obvious question: Where was Russ Feingold? Feingold is the only man in the Senate to have voted against the original Patriot Act and he had made reforming those provisions a key issue over the last year as this reauthorization has been debated. But in the end, those provisions -- including the almost universally abused National Security Letters -- were reauthorized without any new safeguards added to them. And this was done on a voice vote? Where was Feingold to refuse to give unanimous consent and at least force an actual vote?
For that matter, where was Obama? You know, the one who argued before taking office that the Patriot Act needed to be changed. As Wired points out, he was arguing the exact opposite about the bill now and pressuring Congress to reauthorize those provisions without any changes to them.
This will fit in perfectly in a major speech I'll be giving in three weeks entitled "Meet the New Boss: Obama and the Constitution."
Politics
Comments
That quaint notion expired upon winning the nomination.
I'm looking forward to your speech.
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | March 4, 2010 9:52 AM
makes me sick.
c'mon team Blue - all those abuses of power that team Red did, and you didn't like - where are your voices now? Please! speak up!
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 4, 2010 10:11 AM
That is nauseating. I've never been the "throw them all out" kind of person, but hearing about despicable things like this makes that option seem all the much more appealing.
Posted by: Mr. B | March 4, 2010 10:35 AM
Well - for the good it does, my representative voted against it. I'm going to have to send a letter to my senators though! And more - it's past time for Harry Reed to go.
Posted by: Jo | March 4, 2010 10:42 AM
Sending a letter to your senator...now that is quaint. I could send a letter to my senior Senator, Diane Feinstein (D-Defense Industry) but I am not attaching a ten million dollar check, so why will she listen in any way?
Sorry folks...the system is broken. Depending on the Democratic Party to do ANYTHING is a losers game.
Posted by: Brian M | March 4, 2010 11:07 AM
I couldn't find Rep. Pelosi in this roll call, neither a yes, no, not voting, or even a search of the page.
BTW, IIRC, the vote in the Senate in Dec-2000 that allowed Investment Banks to take on securitized home loans and not purchase hedges from regulated insurance companies with stricter reserve requirements? Same way, unanimous consent; I believe it happened mere days prior to Christmas during the lame-duck period for both Congress and President Clinton. It was also in an omnibus bill for even more opaqueness. When you look at how the government contributed to the credit crisis, that vote is Exhibit A. It's also a primary argument for why we need least one influential caucus that is inherently anti-business to the point of being suspicious and sizable enough to filibuster, I do not take an anti-business position, quite the opposite; however it is a valid argument and a needed voice.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 4, 2010 11:13 AM
We don't have a 2 party system, we have a coin.It has 2 faces a heads and a tails but it is essentially a coin.To expect it to be anything else means you aren't paying attention, and for myself I tend to think the coin analogy is apropo.
Until we get money out of the equation it is the only thing that speaks.
Welcome to 11th century feudalism serfs :)
Posted by: StandingDamaged | March 4, 2010 11:45 AM
I think they do just to laugh at bloggers squirming and whining. The annoying joke is that "da man" knows everything about honest citizens, but terrorists can just skip their visa.
Posted by: suburbanite | March 4, 2010 11:52 AM
To be fair, it is entirely common for the Senate to take a dead bill and "amend" it into an entirely new bill. ("An amendment in the nature of a substitute.") This speeds the process along, and the Senate does it for procedural reasons that really don't matter here. The "new" bill still has to pass both chambers to be law.
The current healthcare bill used this method. The bill (H.R. 3590) was introduced in the House by Rep. Rangel and passed easily, but it was a very different bill at the time. It was the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.
Rangel's bill went nowhere in the Senate, but then Sen. Reid seized upon this "empty vessel" and used it to introduce his healthcare bill. The bill was totally amended and became the current healthcare bill. The Senate passed it with 60 votes on December 24, and now the bill has gone back to the House (which already passed this bill in very different form). If Pelosi can round up the votes, this is the bill that will become law in a few weeks.
When Sen. Reid amended the bill he did change the name to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but he didn't have to. The healthcare bill that is on the verge of passing could very easily be called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009!
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 4, 2010 12:26 PM
Ed,
I just checked THOMAS, and the same thing I just described about the health bill happened to this PATRIOT Act bill. It passed the House as something else, and was then amended (in the nature of a substitute) in the Senate, by Sen. Reid.
Also, the amendment DID change the name of the bill. When you look it up on THOMAS, it is clearly called "An Act to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT [Act]." There was nothing "nefarious" going on here.
-The amendment in the nature of a substitute was passed via unanimous consent.
-The amendment changing the name of the bill was passed via unanimous consent.
-The amended bill then passed via unanimous consent.
Shortest and most likely explanation? A deal was made to push the debate off for another year until after healthcare and the elections. I suspect that Sen. Feingold thought this was best, becuase a single objector could have blocked the vote.
The extension lasts until Feb 28, 2011.
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 4, 2010 12:35 PM
Obama's most experienced supporters never believed all that idealistic stuff about "changing the tone in Washington" and "post-partisanship." All they wanted to do is replace the pig-headed stubbornly partisan right-wing policies of Bush and Cheney with pig-headed stubbornly partisan left-wing policies.
The same lefties who accused Bush of rushing us into Iraq without a real national debate, wanted to rush health care reform into law last August without a real national debate. The policy is different. But not the pig-headed refusal to listen to anyone else.
Politics is all about POWER. And the Patriot Act gives the Executive Branch that much more power.
So none of this surprises me. I've been around long enough to see that liberal administrations (like LBJ's) have no claim to moral superiority over conservative ones.
Posted by: sinz54 | March 4, 2010 1:11 PM
I couldn't find Rep. Pelosi in this roll call, neither a yes, no, not voting, or even a search of the page.
Nothing nefarious about that. As presiding officer, the Speaker generally doesn't cast a vote except to break a tie.
Posted by: Eric Lund | March 4, 2010 1:13 PM
Nitpick - from where I'm sitting in the UK the Obama administration doesnt look particularly left-wing.
Posted by: bexley | March 4, 2010 1:28 PM
bexley, I think the word "nitpick" refers to paying too much attention to a detail that's relatively inconsequential. Pointing out the fact that this administration is decidedly not left-wing isn't picking a nit, it's more like pulling out a full-grown botfly! Not to mention the hilarious notion that it's somehow LEFT-wing to re-authorize the PATRIOT act.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 4, 2010 2:28 PM
sinz54, #11: The same lefties who accused Bush of rushing us into Iraq without a real national debate, wanted to rush health care reform into law last August without a real national debate.
I have no idea of which "lefties" you're talking about. Most lefties I know would welcome a national debate on health care. Most of us are confident that after a real debate on the subject, the American people would overwhelming support intelligent health care reform. We may be naive in that, but few of us want to rush anything into law without debate.
What you may be referring to are many people, some leftist, some not, who are objecting to Republican tactics which are not only NOT furthering a debate, but actually attempting to prevent any constructive solution whatsoever to the dismal state of health care in this country.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 2:38 PM
Power to do what? Obama is completely ineffectual to enact major portions of this agenda.
It just might be that the ethical guy everybody who knew him personally said Obama was, and his whole life history as being an ethical guy were just an enormous ruse so he could parlay himself to the ultimate seat of power where he could reign ineffectually and accomplish nothing.
Or, it just might be that there is an actual need to have the Patriot act in order to protect us from religiously-deranged violent fundamentalists who see the world as a vast conspiracy of megalomaniacal misogynists - sort of like you seem to do.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 4, 2010 3:04 PM
Posted by: eamick | March 4, 2010 3:09 PM
Let me word that a bit better: The only time the Speaker is required to vote is when the vote is tied; the Speaker is obviously allowed to vote any other time she wishes.
Posted by: eamick | March 4, 2010 3:11 PM
Gingerbaker "It just might be that the ethical guy everybody who knew him personally said Obama was, and his whole life history as being an ethical guy were just an enormous ruse so he could parlay himself to the ultimate seat of power where he could reign ineffectually and accomplish nothing."
Well, he did say that Carter was his hero.*
* Alternately, he didn't, but I'm not going to let facts stand in the way of a joke
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 4, 2010 3:12 PM
Mr. B: That is nauseating. I've never been the "throw them all out" kind of person, but hearing about despicable things like this makes that option seem all the much more appealing.
While that option might be a bit extreme, IMO our system would benefit if the incumbent reelection rate in Congress went from its current greater-than-90% rate down to, say, 60-70%.
Right now there's no real penalty for screwing up legislation. Get caught with an intern and you might lose your job. But pass a crappy law? No chance that will cost you your job.
Posted by: eric | March 4, 2010 3:17 PM
"Or, it just might be that there is an actual need to have the Patriot act in order to protect us from religiously-deranged violent fundamentalists who see the world as a vast conspiracy of megalomaniacal misogynists"
is this how you feel about PATRIOT?
i certainly don't think it's needed to protect us. In fact, it takes away too much from us and gives the govt too much.
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 4, 2010 4:24 PM
VikingMoose, #2: c'mon team Blue - all those abuses of power that team Red did, and you didn't like - where are your voices now?
In the liberal press. You probably missed it because the mainstream media and the conservative press don't report it. Evidently you don't read it either, otherwise you wouldn't have missed it.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 5:49 PM
No, I think it is awful. But the fact that Obama, who is not a fascist nutbag, evidently seems to think it is needed makes me think he might know something I don't.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 4, 2010 8:53 PM
As a victim of 24/7 warrant less surveillance for three years by all agencies participating with Homeland Security, Infragard, Citizen Corp, Law enforcement, Military, Fire Fighters and EMS workers, community watch, and as an innocent man targeted for destruction using cointell pro gang stalking torture tactics, I am disgusted.
Because of the Patriot Act , and Immunity, I can not file for freedom of information and collect data which I could use in a court of law to restore my name and sue for damages.
And ,now I have to wait another year,endure more psychological torture, and watch as these unaccountable , un constitutional thugs grow there power and spy network of stazi destruction for one more year.
And every year that goes by with the Patriot Act as law, brings us closer to marshal law and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship.
All Hail Pax American and the Washington elected sellouts and treasonous supreme court.
Posted by: bornfreemen | March 5, 2010 7:58 AM
bornfreeman, #24: As a victim of 24/7 warrant less surveillance for three years by all agencies participating with Homeland Security...Fire Fighters and EMS workers....
Huh?
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 8:03 AM
nope. try again.
"liberal press"? srsly! is that all you bring?
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 5, 2010 9:59 AM
In the liberal press.
Let's see what a quick search for "Patriot Act Reauthorization" in the liberal press turns up on a Democratic Congress reauthorizing the Patriot Act with revision then:
The Nation - Zip
Mother Jones - Zilch
The American Prospect - An article about it by Julian Sanchez, who is a libertarian
They sure are up in arms about it!
Of course, those searches turn up no shortage of articles about complaining about the Bush era reauthorizations.
Posted by: MattXIV | March 5, 2010 12:02 PM
VikingMoose, #26: "liberal press"? srsly! is that all you bring?
Huh? You asked why "Blue States" weren't speaking up. I just replied that they are. It's not their fault or my fault that the sources you use don't report it.
Read The Nation. Pace MattXIV, The Nation routinely criticizes the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress over their advocacy for and use of overly broad security measures.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 2:25 PM
Julian does good work
and still - not buying it.
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 5, 2010 2:50 PM
Chiropetra,
I did search The Nation's website - no mention of it as of this morning. If you have a link to them discussing it, then post it, but they seem to be silent on the manner.
Posted by: MattXIV | March 5, 2010 3:53 PM
No, I think it is awful. But the fact that Obama, who is not a fascist nutbag, evidently seems to think it is needed makes me think he might know something I don't.
This is word-for-word the same argument that was used by Bush supporters.
Did you find it credible at the time?
If you feel the Patriot Act is justifiable at present, do you feel it was justifiable when it was first passed? If so, how does this affect your assessment of the Bush presidency?
Posted by: 8Track | March 5, 2010 4:36 PM
MattXIV, #30:
The search engine on their website sucks big time, so I rarely use it to try to find an article. I usually use it to link to an article that I've already read in the paper edition; I know which issue it was in so that I can actually find it.
I think I still have back issues for the last year and a half, covering Obama's administration to date, so if you'd like I can look up articles on national security and the Obama administration.
If you're interested in the Patriot Act specifically, the particular vote was, what?, last week or the week before? The Nation isn't a news magazine like The Economist; it's main purpose is analysis and commentary. It may be another week or two before anyone has anything significant to say about that particular Congressional vote.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 6, 2010 1:48 PM