Got a response from Senator Nelson. I have not done my update for today. I'll get to it, but my cable is still out, and I got to fix that before them $2 whores go home. February 10, 2006Mr. Vernon Davis Omaha, NE 68131Dear Vernon:Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. I appreciated hearing your opinion as Congress continues to debate this high-profile issue.First-although you are no doubt familiar with this issue-let me take some time to update you on the progress and current status of the reauthorization legislation, as much has happened since Congress first began work on this issue last summer. The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act (S. 1389/H.R. 3199) was introduced in both chambers in early July 2005. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill on July 21 by a vote of 255-171, and the Senate passed our own version unanimously a week later.The differences between the two bills are subtle, but important. Both the Senate and the House versions of the legislation permanently reauthorize 14 of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. The remaining two provisions, however, have been the source of significant debate between and within the two bodies of Congress. These two provisions contain the controversial "library and business records provision," and also govern certain criteria regarding prior judicial review of investigations-and the legal due process rights of suspects-under the PATRIOT Act.It is important to note that, in the Senate, we passed our bill unanimously-which is a great testament to the validity of the compromises made to improve and extend this controversial law. In re-examining the delicate balance between respecting civil liberties and protecting Americans from those who wish us harm, we found a middle ground that met the approval of all 100 Senators. In general, the Senate version of the legislation is more deferential to civil liberties; it includes additional protections and shorter "sunsets" before the legislation must again be reauthorized. However, because of the bicameral system, there remained a need for additional compromise above and beyond what we as Senators had agreed upon.The Senate debated the conference report for H.R. 3199 during the final weeks of the first session of this 109th Congress. Despite additional compromises made by the conferees as the debate continued, several Senators were opposed to the conference report because it did not go far enough in protecting civil liberties. On December 16, 2005, the Senate voted not to invoke cloture (end debate) on the conference report. I first supported the cloture motion because additional debate at that time was unlikely to resolve Senators' differences over the controversial sections of the bill. Then, I joined 47 of my colleagues as a co-sponsor of a short-term extension of the PATRIOT Act to allow more time for a compromise to be negotiated. The PATRIOT Act has since been temporarily extended a second time, and is now set to expire on March 10, 2006.Regardless of the debate over protection of civil liberties, it is important that the PATRIOT Act not be allowed to expire. I value civil liberties, and share the concerns about the potential abuse of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act as passed in 2001-especially in light of the recent revelation of a domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. However, allowing the PATRIOT Act to completely expire is also a significant risk, given the ongoing threat of terrorism. Congress must work together to make the tough decisions necessary to protect our citizens from the threat of terrorism while at the same time maintaining our inalienable civil liberties.The extension of the PATRIOT Act is one of the most complex and controversial issues to come before the Senate. I believe it is Congress' duty to continually examine and re-examine our laws with the goal of strengthening what needs strengthened, fixing what is broken, and upholding what is working effectively. My role as a U.S. Senator is to evaluate with the utmost care and diligence any proposal which would ultimately abridge our constitutional rights and, therefore, upset the balance which must exist between protecting our civil liberties and protecting ourselves from those who wish us harm. Rest assured I do not take this duty lightly, and I will keep your views in mind as these issues are addressed within the Senate.Thank you again for contacting me on this very important issue. The legislative process will only work with the input of informed citizens such as yourself; therefore, I encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts.Sincerely,Ben NelsonU.S. Senator
Okay, I read that letter. On the pissed off scale(1-10, just like every other scale), it is about 7. Of course I don’t know all the information that the president may or may not have. But for him to vote for the continuation of the Patriot Act is ludicrous. To say that he will not be getting my vote is acceptable, of course I just found out he is a democrat. I vote republican, excluding George W. Bush.