Home Page

Press Center 2008

Press Center 2007

Press Center 2006

Press Center 2005

Press Center 2003-2004

Islamic charities

Anti-Muslim smears
 

Logo-0

www.amperspective.com Online Magazine

Executive Editor: Abdus Sattar Ghazali

New York Times – July 8, 2004

House leaves Patriot Act as is

By Alan Fram

WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House bowed to a White House veto threat Thursday (July 7) and stood by the USA Patriot Act, defeating an effort to bloc the part of the anti-terrorism law that helps the government investigate people's reading habits.

The effort to defy Bush and bridle the law's powers lost by 210-210, with a majority needed to prevail. The amendment appeared on its way to victory as the roll call's normal 15-minute time limit expired, but GOP leaders kept the vote open for 23 more minutes as they persuaded about 10 Republicans who initially supported the provision to change their votes.

Shame, shame, shame," Democrats chanted as the minutes passed and votes were switched. The tactic was reminiscent of last year's House passage of the Medicare overhaul measure, when GOP leaders held the vote open for an extra three hours until they got the votes they needed.

"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.

Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers...

The effort to curb the Patriot Act was pushed by a coalition of Democrats and conservative Republicans. But they fell short in a showdown that came just four months before an election in which the conduct of the fight against terrorism will be on the political agenda.

Besides successfully fending off the effort to weaken the law, the veto threat underscored the administration's determination to strike an aggressive stance on law enforcement and terrorism...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/opinion/O9LAMB.html