Anyway, isn't "aiight" a kewl word?
Update: A few more words about this issue. First off, the ultimate vote turned on votes of a Republican and Democrat, who supported a different form of the legislation. Rep. Lofgren (D) suggested it was too broad, though the rules of the House required the particular wording, which could have been tempered in the House/Senate negotiations (as is often the case). She did criticize the delay (one Rep. Dick Cheney vehemently opposed when the shoe was on the other foot) and said the use of the Patriot provision is still not fully understood (who's the blame for that?!). To reiterate, the letter supplied to convince some legislators to change their vote was simple fear mongering. Besides being rather vague, reforms to the legislation could have still allowed investigation of such activity. It all is fairly typical, and why the system has to change, and the best bet is to change some of the players.
"You win some, and some get stolen," Rep. C.L. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the defeated provision and one of Congress' more conservative members, told a reporter.
-- TalkLeft
A proposal with support from liberals and conservative libertarians to withhold funding to a provision of the USA Patriot Act (sic) was voted down 210-210 today. It seemed that the measure was going to pass, but the vote was extended for over twenty minutes to convince some legislators to change their minds. The Bush Administration had threatened to veto any piece of legislation that weakened the law in any way, given that obviously (tons of expert testimony and so forth aside, as well as support from around the nation) any compromise would be a threat to the War on Terror. After all, we have this sort of thing:
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., read a letter from the Justice Department stating that "as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al-Qaida" had used Internet services at a public library. The letter mentioned no specifics, Wolf said.
Oh, sure, I bet those Republicans in the Senate who supported similar legislation didn't know about that! After all, Ashcroft ridiculed those concerned about the matter, and his top spokesman said the provision was never used. It is true patron information was requested various times, but you can understand why the 210 might be confused about the importance of the legislation. In fact, they might still note that the amendment is concerned with American citizens, not foreign terrorists. Or, that use of the Internet is a bit different than looking at what books a person takes out. Finally, of course, a provision that requires a special court to release records closely connected to our First Amendment rights without probable cause can be fixed without never allowing such material to be collected at all.
This is exactly why the USA Patriot Act should never have been passed so quickly in October, 2001 in the first place. As is usually the case, once Pandora's Box is opened, even slight amendments to legislation is very hard, given the threat of veto. It doesn't help, of course, that our President is a schmuck with a lapdog House going along on most things that matters.