Senate Republicans are moving on Audrey Hudson's story today about Democrats aiming to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that would protect the anyone from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that could lead to terrorist attacks.
A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber's parliamentarian ruled this morning that the "John Doe" protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.
"Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave," the aide said.
However, Democrats plan to limit the number of amendments to only three or four and there is no word yet on which amendments will be allowed.
-- Audrey Hudson, homeland security reporter, The Washington Times
UPDATE 8:45 p.m.
The Senate just rejected an amendment that would have added the "John Doe" protection provision to an education bill. The vote was 57 for and 39 against, but the vote involved a Senate procedural rule that required a three-fifths majority for approval.
The roll call vote is now online, and the vote breaks down:
NO - 38 Democrats and Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent.
YES - 48 Republicans, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and 8 Democrats:
- Sen. Max Baucus, MontanaNOT VOTING -- Three Democrats (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California; Sen. Tim Johnson, South Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois) and Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican.
- Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York
- Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota
- Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska
- Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York
- Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota
- Sen Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana
Comments (11)
And now we know exacly why they are called "LUNATIC liberals!"
Posted by Ed S | July 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Do they think before they vote? They actually voted against protecting people who report potential terrorist activity. They've literally left our country vulnerable.
Posted by Benson | July 19, 2007 10:00 PM
It would seem that Democrats are more interested in the protecting the rights of non-citizens than citizens. For what purpose, one must wonder?
Posted by Larry Stone | July 20, 2007 1:52 AM
Those that voted against this amendment gave cover to those that would kill them and us. I have noticed in particular that my Senators Boxer and Feinstein either didn't vote or voted against. Ladies, what can you be thinking of, this is life and death, are you crazy?
Posted by Ronald Norman | July 20, 2007 9:16 AM
Brownback (Switchback) and his failure to vote here left me furious. He is temporarily my senator, but I will work to see that he is replaced by someone who will actually show up to work and represent my interests.
Posted by Carl H. | July 20, 2007 12:02 PM
Maybe the wording of the amendment was such that many of them could forsee one or two out the 300,000,000 Americans and Non-Americans, (Legal and Illegal) finding something to be offended about.
Posted by aLLEN | July 20, 2007 12:30 PM
I cannot fathom a Congressman rejecting an ammendment protecting citizens who notify authorities of suspicious activities. It is our civic duty as citizens to look out for the welfare of our fellow citizens. We do not need to be told. I am frustrated with our representatives continually giving the benefit of the doubt to our enemies. Where is their sense of duty to the citizens they represent?
Posted by Paul Gallagher | July 20, 2007 4:28 PM
Do those who vote no understand how to prevent another 9/11? Can they, for once, put politics aside and think strategically for the security of our nation? Playing it safe is a deadly strategy. Protect our citizens when they report suspicious activity.... PLEASE vote YES!
Posted by Michele Doyle | July 21, 2007 1:18 AM
Does anyone remember when doctors were afraid to report suspicion of child abuse? Common sense finally prevailed. Maybe there is hope for this government yet!! One can only hope...
Posted by Jan | July 21, 2007 10:29 AM
Follow the Saudi, Qatar, and Trial Lawyer's money. A sellout of the American people.
The Copperheads (Democrats who fought Lincoln and wanted a peace treaty with the South )are at it again!
Posted by Ron Kilmartin | July 21, 2007 9:19 PM
There is another, perfectly legitimate side to this question folks. Every year our government wastes untold millions of dollars tracking down fake leads, phony plots, crank calls and the inevitable kook types who simply want to get attention by cooking up all manner of conspiracy theories. Why in the world do you people so passionately oppose having some legal remedy against the nut jobs who do this sort of thing to us? Unless you enjoy being manipulated, misled and paralyzed by your irrational fears.
Posted by Gary Jackson | July 22, 2007 9:56 AM