SB 2016-005: Real Patriot Act (Failed)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: JoMCar

72 hours for debate.

[tmthforu94]

Considering the Patriot Act expired, this definitely needs clarification on what the sponsor is intending. Are you supporting a total repeal of the Freedom Act?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

did this mean "Repeal" instead of Real?

[Mike Thick]

did this mean "Repeal" instead of Real?

No, he's saying that the "real" patriotic thing to do would be to get rid of the act.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

did this mean "Repeal" instead of Real?

No, he's saying that the "real" patriotic thing to do would be to get rid of the act.

oh, lol

[tmthforu94]

This was put on the floor over a busy weekend. The period for debate is nearly 2/3 over, but I think it is imperative that we have a discussion - I'll likely have some amendments, but want to hear JoMCar's statement first.

Extending debate for an additional 48 hours.

[Blair]

I too want to hear more about this, and the effects it would have on national security

[Prince of Salem]

Ok, sorry I'm a little late.

First, I'd like to explain why I introduced this bill. And it is pretty simple: to address the legitimate concerns about the violation of people's privacy rights.

Second, I'd like to clarify that many provisions of the PATRIOT Act were renewed through the FREEDOM Act, so its new expiration date is in 2019.

Third, I know the FREEDOM Act does eliminate some of the worst aspects of the PATRIOT Act, so I think is time to have a good discussion to decide whether that was enough to ensure privacy rights.

[tmthforu94]

I supported the continuation of the FREEDOM Act that was passed as a compromise last year, which eliminated some of the controversial portions of the PATRIOT Act. The top priority of the government, in my opinion, is to keep its people safe. The FREEDOM Act helps give law enforcement the tools needed to better secure our nation and also provide support for families of the victims of terrorist attacks. The results show that it has worked, and much of the controversy it brought was already repealed last year.

Repealing this law would create a major threat to our national security at a time of uncertainty around the world, and I cannot in good conscious support it.

[Goldwater]

I'm inclined to agree with Tmth here. While I think the original PATRIOT Act went too far in restricting civil liberties, I do think that we need to maintain a balance between privacy and security in order to keep nation safe and the citizen's best interested in mind, and I fear that completely repealing the FREEDOM Act might tip the scales too far against the direction of security.

[tmthforu94]

Seeing as there has been ample time for additional discussion/amendments (sorry for the delay), I will bring this up for a final vote. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.


Nay

The bill doesn't make sense as written, since the PATRIOT Act is no longer in effect and it doesn't specify that this only affects the PATRIOT Act provisions within the FREEDOM Act. In addition, for the reasons listed in my earlier post, this is a vote to affirm my commitment to national security, which I believe this bill would jeopardize.

[Goldwater]

NAY

[Pingvin]

Aye

[Blair]

Abstain

[This account no longer in use.]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

The maximum amount of time for voting has expired. There are 2 Ayes, 2 Nays and 1 Abstention. I will notify the Vice President to cast the tie-breaking vote.

[Lumine]

Noted. I'll be breaking the tie later today, with an explanation of my vote.

[Lumine]

I'm going to speak up on this and other different subjects later on a speech, but I am not pleased at all with the performance of Congress on issues like this particular bill.

Gentlemen, national security is a very serious issue, and while normally I would commend the Senate for taking the time to debate these issues the problem remains glaring. First things first, the bill is not well written at all, it does not account for the fact that the Patriot Act does not exist now, and it would do nothing but cause further uncertainty on a issue that doesn't need it now, and doesn't need it at all.

Second, despite ample time to debate and consider how to improve the Freedom Act or take a productive step, there was virtually no debate. No amendments, a few general criticisms now and then, a defence that was not convincing compared to the spirit of the bill, and the list could go on further.

Which leads me to point number three. If you have a piece of legislation that is currently having no practical effect, don't pass it and leave it up to the other House to do the hard work. That's not why we have both a Senate and a House in Congress, period. There is a legitimate debate to be had on national security and civil liberties, and there is room for improvement. But I am not approving of something done so casually and, I must say it, so irresponsibly.

So NAY, I break the tie against this bill.

[tmthforu94]

Thank you, Mr. VP. The bill has failed.