Lawmakers kill cell phone robo-call bill

Rep. Lee Terry got the hint. The robo-calls bill is dead.

The bill sponsored by Terry, R-Neb., (H.R. 3035) would have allowed “robo-calls” to your cell phone  even if you didn’t give a company permission to contact you at that number. 

Consumer groups made a lot of noise in the hope that Congress would kill the bill. They call it a dangerous proposal that could lead to more nuisance calls.

Supporters of the “Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011” include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Air Transport Association, as well as groups that represent bankers, mortgage lenders, college loan programs and debt collectors. 

On Wednesday, Terry and bill co-sponsor Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y., sent a letter to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee asking that the legislation not be advanced.

Last week, attorneys general in 48 of the 50 states sent their own letter to Congress opposing the legislation.

In a blog post published Tuesday, Delicia Reynolds, legislative director for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, warned that the legislation would "open up cell phones to unwanted and nuisance calls.” A poll on msnbc.com found that out of 60,000 votes cast, 99.5 percent opposed the bill.

"We swung and missed," Charles Isom, communications director for Rep. Terry, told msnbc.com. "There was no clear way forward with this bill."

Here is the letter sent to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton:

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and Chairman Walden, for allowing the hearing to occur on the merits of HR 3035. The hearing really helped to bring to our attention the issue of out of date telecommunications policy and how we need to begin to modernize current law. 

However, what we have learned is there is no hope for this legislation. We have heard from our constituents. They are concerned about what they believe will happen should this legislation become law. We have convened meetings with numerous consumer groups, as well as other organizations who have an interest in the legislation, but we have been unable to reach any kind of consensus on language that bans unwanted cell phone calls, while allowing calls that are consented to.

In an attempt to thread the needle and address the issues that have been brought before us, it is clear that this bill cannot be improved in a manner that will address the concerns of those involved. Therefore, we ask that HR 3035 not be advanced by the committee.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lee Terry
Edolphus "Ed" Towns

Msnbc.com's Al Olson and Herb Weisbaum and Nebraska's ETV Newswatch 7 contributed to this report.

 

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4

At last.... An X-Mas gift that Washington used. A few threads of common sense!

  • 39 votes
#1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:48 PM EST

Not that it really matters. We get robo calls on cell phones all the time, even though the number is on the no call list.

There's no actual enforcement, so who needs the green light anyway?

This law is a joke either way.

  • 13 votes
#1.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:59 PM EST

That's the thing, SteveYo, the companies doing said robocalls to your cell phone are in fact breaking the law. You must give express consent to a business to use a robodialer to contact you, the Do No Call registry has nothing to do with it, since it was establish for land lines. And at that, 99% of said robocalls are probably from illigitamate business to begin with, and are probably breaking more than just the cell phone consent regulations. I have been in the telecommunications industry for over 10 years now. I have to know stuff like this to not get fired

  • 12 votes
#1.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:20 PM EST

So do I, but they all seem to be in Spanish. We need to check trans-national telemarketing as well.

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:21 PM EST

I get robo calls on my cell all the time. I put my number on the cell phone do not call list, and it helped for about a month, but then they started up again. There should be some recourse for those of us who have to pay for our minutes if companies call and use our minutes without our permission. I also get marketing texts quite often, and I have to pay 20 cents a text for them It is very irritating.

  • 14 votes
#1.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:23 PM EST

Exactly. Eric, if you decided to break this law, NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN--at least to your employer. Laws are of no purpose if they aren't enforced.

  • 8 votes
#1.5 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:47 AM EST

I cannot believe anyone in the US would have supported this bill unless they were a telemarketer! This just goes to show you our legislators mainly the new congress members do not do their home work before they take the graft

  • 13 votes
#1.6 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:50 AM EST

BTW there is recouse if you register your number on the do not call list. Google national do not call list. If you are bothered you can file a lawsuit against ones that bother you. I got a few calls and the voice said if you ar A Sxxxxxx please stay on the lin if not hang up. Next cal was B Sxxxxxx LOL guess they were gonna go through the entire alphabet. No girst name just an initial!

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:55 AM EST

I do not get any solicitations on my cell phone since I got a survey taken by a live person and politely made small talk, asking questions about weather, college football teams and bitching about my home state between questions. I found out the caller was from Arkansas, after the 5th question. I then made the comment that if I received another call of this manner on my cell phone I was going to fly to Arkansas hunt "becky" down and give her and her whole family the biggest ass whooping ever. You stalk me and call me without permission, I view that as a threat, I might just choke the living crap out of you without yours, it's fair in my book.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:24 AM EST

You can file a lawsuit? Really? I have filed a "complaint" and got a form letter response thanking me for reporting it and they would investigate. I still get them. How about when they spoof a number so that you don't get the correct number on your caller ID or even get no number?

  • 1 vote
#1.9 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:53 AM EST

If you needed more proof that our government is in a constant tug of war between the will of the people and the want of the corporations.

In what world do you have a government that you support with taxes, corporations use loopholes and subsidies so they dont pay taxes, and the citizen has to bash their corrupt reps. in the head with a hammer just to get them to do the right thing.

I say take all the politicians, bankers, and rich fat cats and put them on trial for treason. They obviously are doing this country harm.

  • 4 votes
#1.10 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:08 AM EST

I am going to mark today down as a day remembered in infamy:

The day the Government actually listened to the public yell "DO NOT WANT" and did exactly what the US Citizens said. For once, they ignored political and party rhetoric and really listened to the people!

Excuse me while I check the temperature in Hell. I am sure Satan's pilot light went out... again...

  • 5 votes
#1.11 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:22 AM EST

Rabid,

Thankfully its close to the election. This is about the only time these weasels listen to us.

  • 1 vote
#1.12 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:26 AM EST

huh, they do realize we're out here.

  • 1 vote
#1.13 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:59 AM EST

I certainly hope that Lee Terry also realized that people everywhere where planning on giving out his office numbers to businesses. It would give me the jollies to think that part of his decision making process was influenced by the knowledge that companies would be robo calling his offices day and night if the legislation passed.

  • 2 votes
#1.14 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:06 PM EST

but we have been unable to reach any kind of consensus on language that bans unwanted cell phone calls, while allowing calls that are consented to

What an idiot! Calls that are consented to are calls from folks who got the digits from the cellphone owner.

AARGHH

  • 4 votes
#1.15 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:11 PM EST
Reply

Rep. Terry should spend time on more important stuff than wearing the leash for the US Chamber of Thieves. How about trying to figure out where that pipeline will run without causing any environmental damage?

  • 25 votes
#2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:49 PM EST

No agenda for you, is there, Scooter? What a putz!

    #2.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:05 PM EST

    No agenda

    Chuck,

    It sounds like Jake's agenda is consumer and environmental protection.

    Yours is obviously just calling people names. Not much of a debater, huh?

    • 27 votes
    #2.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:16 PM EST

    does anyone realize how out of touch our Congress is; to even propose this monster it is a insult to the American people, we pay for our calls, imagine getting hundreds of minutes of robo text messages as well as calls; this idiot Congressman must have his head up where the sun does not shine, what a insult to the American public to even propose such a thing .

    • 26 votes
    #2.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:49 PM EST

    Yea, that is where most of these GOP guy's have their head right up Corporate America's BUTT, anything for a buck .....

    • 17 votes
    #2.4 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:12 AM EST

    @Saxon., This was an attempt by the GOP and the Koch-funded corporate TEAParty to contact the people who don't own landlines because many younger people do not watch broadcast TV/ TV news and do not read the papers so the only way to reach them was to harass them via their cell phone.

    All of the money that they now have available to them because of Citizens United SCOTUS decision and outrageous concept of corporate personhood doesn't mean squat if your message can't reach the people.

    I have a landline in addition to me cell, but I also have caller ID, so I don't pick up their BS robocalls.

    • 7 votes
    #2.5 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:18 AM EST

    Co-sponsor was who? a demoncrat from NY? damn them right wingers...lol. Vote them both out. Oh thats right lefts won't kick lefts out of office.

    • 5 votes
    #2.6 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:43 AM EST

    Yeah, Gunsmith--

    Maybe before trying to make a partisan case, you should watch Dylan Ratigan's tirade on Morning Joe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv74YD05LaI

    Epistemologist is right. Left and right are irrelevant where corporate interests are concerned.

    • 6 votes
    #2.7 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:55 AM EST

    Gunsmith, this isn't right vs left. It's corporate lackeys vs the rest of us. We need to start eliminating those of both parties that don't listen to us, and instead are listening to the biggest paycheck. That is bipartisan.

    Now if you want to start discussing which party has more corporate shills, we can have a discussion about that, sure.

    • 12 votes
    #2.8 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:58 AM EST

    A better clip, with better sense, is here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=related

      #2.9 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:03 AM EST

      1 democratic cosponsor does not make it bipartisain, hopefully they primary that sheep in wolf's clothing and vote his corporate whore fascist butt out and put in a true American progressive who takes on and takes out the big business agenda that is ruining this country.

      • 5 votes
      #2.10 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:28 AM EST

      Funny: 9 out of 10 cosponsors for this insane bill were REPUBLICAN but the article doesn't mention *that*...

      • 8 votes
      #2.11 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:50 AM EST

      If you would have read the article the bill was co-sponsored by a democrat!

        #2.12 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:06 AM EST

        Frank- I like your attitude. It's time we stopped playing nice with the fascist right in this country.

        • 4 votes
        #2.13 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:33 AM EST

        I just wish the politicians would honor the do not call registry. I hate getting calls on both my cell and home phone from anyone that wants to run for office.

        • 4 votes
        #2.14 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:57 AM EST

        The Do Not Call law has a specific exception for political calls. You just knew they would do that, didn't you? Personally, I think they should outlaw ALL robocalls on all phones.

        • 1 vote
        #2.15 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:43 AM EST

        Robo calls and telemarketers should go the way of the door to door salesperson: extinct.

        • 1 vote
        #2.16 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:12 PM EST
        Reply

        Another example of GOP failure because they are out of touch with what the public wants. I for one take a whistle to the unwanted calls on my cell phone. They get the whistle and guess what, they don't call back. The GOP is desperate and it shows pathetically to the American public. Just tonight only 51% of adults are married. Guess what, a huge percentage that are not married are not religious and are Democrats. Time is on our side, and soon within the next year or two less than half of adults will be married. Brainwashing by the religious is going by the way side. Real adults believe in the right of all for healthcare that is affordable, the right to marry who and when they want, the right to keep speaking for GOD and not the devil whom the religious choose to claim to love all, but yet no food stamps, no unemployment benefits, no social security, no right to medical coverage, and yes to bullying by their devilish children who are brainwashed by their incompetent parents and grandparents.

        • 19 votes
        Reply#3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:59 PM EST

        The bill was also sponsored by Ed Towns a Democrat. He should be tarred and feathered.

        • 9 votes
        #3.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:00 PM EST

        Sheeesh, this bill was submitted by a Republican and a Democrat.

        It sure didn't take long for a Liberal to start mud throwing at Republicans, which seems to be the norm.....Liberals can't read (Posts #3 and #4).

        Maybe they forgot their marching orders.....to blast any Republican contender for the White House while praising Mr. Obama for anything and everything and forget about everything else.

        • 4 votes
        #3.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:44 PM EST

        Guys, please look at the list of sponsors before the mud flies... ONE democrat was on the list... the remaining 10 or so were reps... gee that IS bi-partisan...

        That being said, can't really believe they listened for once.

        • 9 votes
        #3.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:05 AM EST

        So Towns is a dino.... democrat in name only... LOL

        There are quite a few of those pretend dems in congress busy mascarading as dems when in actuality they are just republicans that could not get elected as republicans in their state or district, thus they pretend to be dems and thus got elected as a dem.

        That was a part of the reason why in 2009-2010 when the dems had the majority in congress they had difficulty getting some bills like for jobs and for a not for profit public option healthcare (Medicare For All) etc passed... because of these dinos.

        Makes one wonder if these folks in Congress pay for their own mobile or perhaps it is also a perk paid for by the public.... on the other hand they are so wealthy perhaps they do not mind paying for the minutes used up by these unsolicited robocalls.

        • 3 votes
        #3.4 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:12 AM EST

        OMG! "Real adults believe in the right of all for health-care that is affordable, the right to marry who and when they want, the right to keep speaking for GOD and not the devil whom the religious choose to claim to love all, but yet no food stamps, no unemployment benefits, no social security, no right to medical coverage" Are you kidding! Right to medical coverage, Food Stamps? Now I understand Social Security, Unemployment benefits, you paid into those programs. But I have never had a "right" to medical coverage unless I was WORKING. And as far as GOD, he doesn't give out food stamps, you go to a church and see if there are any people there that will help. These days I doubt you will get much because it's as corrupt as our government. And why do same sex people want to marry anyway? Isn't marriage a religious thing? Don't married people actually get penalised on taxes? Why 51% are single now...Self Preservation comes to mind.

        • 1 vote
        #3.5 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:17 AM EST

        Yep gunsmith that is why me and my fiance just live together, I make good money she is devoriced with 2 kids and makes enough under the limit she gets a ton back in taxes. It is more affordable to live together, I bring in 6 figures, she gets the dependants and earned income credit, why kill that golden egg laying goose? I am just using a loophole to get all my taxes back, like a good American Republican.

        • 2 votes
        #3.6 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:33 AM EST

        Again the hate filled comment form the socalist progressive party. This bill was co sponsored by a democrat.

        If you socalist would allow the free market to work and allow all 1,400 health care insurance companies to bid and fight each other you would see health care cost go down. Stop the frivilous lawsuits!! But the socalist party and Obama are owned by the unions and the trial lawyers association!!! Health care cost have just had the largest increase in history this last year AFTER you anti american socalist democrats ramed Obama care thu against the wishs of the majority of americans. Any poll will back that up!!

        Move back to mother russia, cuba , greece or venezula commrade!

          #3.8 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:11 AM EST

          People don't get married because you can't trust in peoples morals anymore..... the very thing you are happy to see go by the way side. ughhhh progressive liberal ideology gives me a headache

            #3.9 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:46 AM EST

            Shawn 1 democrat co sponsoe and how many republican ones??? Looks like a conservaive democrat going along with nazis to me and you try to justify the repukes? Hang everyone who supported this crap.

            No Ronnie marriage has nothing to do with morals, look at Gingrich and Clinton. They should not have gotten married, they should have been honest enough to realize they could not be faithfull and not put someone you cliam to love through that. I was married once, I do not feel the need to make that mistake again.

            Ronnie you do realize the number one cause of divorice is marriage, right?

            • 1 vote
            #3.10 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:11 AM EST

            OMG Shawn... do you live in the real world? Do you have ANY knowledge of recent insurance issues??? I run a business with 100 employees.. I am not ALLOWED to have several companies bid my business because the industry has little rules that prevent this. If I don't have enough employee participation, then I can't shop the biz. They know this and they raised rates by 28% last year and 24% year before. I don't have enough participation because my employees make $8-$11 an hour and can't afford paying these high rates.. even with employer contribution. I almost choked up with laughter when I read your post where they would all bid and that causes rates to go down. I have negotiated rates for 15 years. Not ONCE.. did my rate go down. Always a matter of how much of an increase.

              #3.11 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:05 PM EST
              Reply

              Has anyone asked Terry how much money he was paid by those who would have benefited from passage of this stupid bill?

              • 19 votes
              Reply#4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:00 PM EST

              You bring up a good point Michael, and if the answer were revealed it would be even more disheartening, because apparently, our "honorable" members of Congress are not only whores, like pols everywhere, but they are some of the cheapest whores in the world! They will sell us out for much LESS money than their counterparts worldwide. The only thing worse is that we, the people, keep re-electing them, because we think they are different from the other party, and they aren't. John Boehner & Nancy Pelosi are the same deal. We're the problem, us voters.

              • 7 votes
              #4.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:06 PM EST

              Michael

              Probably the same amount that Democrat Ed Towns got.

              • 2 votes
              #4.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:22 PM EST

              Or asked Reid, Dodd, Frankie, and especially Mrs. Pelosi.

                #4.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:45 PM EST

                It should be a law that reveals how much a Congress-person or Senator gets in money or donation via these lobbyists or supporters of these laws.

                • 9 votes
                #4.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:58 PM EST

                As a voter I can't fix these problems. How many politicians do I really get to chose from? It's always the lesser of all evils.

                Somebody needs to protest this crap.

                • 11 votes
                #4.5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:11 PM EST

                @ Newstart Well said and so true. But be careful that last remark "Somebody needs to protest this crap"' could get you nominated for Times "Person of the year".

                • 2 votes
                #4.6 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:04 AM EST

                Ido or ask boehner why he does the stupid stuff and insider trading crap to make millions just like Pelosi, Newt, and Haster...... Why point out crooks on just 1 side of the isle. Republicans and Democrats and thier "locked in partisian supporters" are what is wrong with America. We need a third party for the workers instead of 2 for the millionaires.

                • 1 vote
                #4.7 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:36 AM EST

                Personally I vote we move toward a more Parliamentary-style government. At least, then, perhaps there would be so many different parties that the corporations wouldn't be able to afford to bribe them all!

                Honestly, the two-party or even three-party system has not and will not work for a country as increasingly diverse as the United States has become. We are no longer homogenous enough to continue dumping everyone into one tent or the other. If we want real representation and a government that is forced to work together in order to get anything done and keep their jobs we need several parties with more minute platforms.

                • 3 votes
                #4.8 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:56 AM EST
                Reply

                @JoAnn-1038484...Thanks for reminding me of the whistle. I had forgotten about it, but will now drag out my "storm whistle" and put it to some use on calls that I am getting on my landlline!

                • 6 votes
                Reply#5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:08 PM EST

                I just put the phone down and let them talk. I come back 10-15 minutes later and hang up. That way, they're using up THEIR dime! LOL

                Glad this didn't pass though, certainly wouldn't want to do that on my cell.

                • 2 votes
                #5.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:59 PM EST

                What good is a whistle when you get a robocall?

                • 3 votes
                #5.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:48 AM EST
                Reply

                It's a little late in the year for Congress to do the first thing this year that made any common sense. Christ, most households have a land line solely for the purpose of avoiding unwanted calls. And that's even after being put on the do not call list. Now they want to be able to make unwanted calls and have the consumer foot the bill. Thank God this did not pass. What a joke this bill was even brought up.

                • 8 votes
                Reply#6 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:09 PM EST

                You know, there was a time Republicans cared about people; now it's all about what big company can pay them the most. Supporters included "U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Air Transport Association, as well as groups that represent bankers, mortgage lenders, college loan programs and debt collectors." Yeah, all a bunch of consumer oriented businesses!

                • 11 votes
                Reply#7 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:29 PM EST

                Thank you Jesus!

                • 1 vote
                Reply#8 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:47 PM EST

                What-- Jesus voted to table the issue? I didn't see him in the list of co-sponsors.

                  #8.1 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:37 AM EST
                  Reply

                  This wasn't being out of touch with people. This was Congressmen being paid puppets for some Lobbyist. Totally disgusting. Event he U.S. Chamber of Commerce should have more ethics than to support such a bill.

                  • 8 votes
                  Reply#9 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:48 PM EST

                  The US Chamber of Commerce is lowest of them all, thay have to reach up to touch bottom.

                  • 4 votes
                  #9.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:02 PM EST

                  The Chamber has become nothing but a streetwalker for the multinationals now. They USED to be an honorable group advocating for the local businesses and fair regulation. No more...

                    #9.2 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:40 AM EST
                    Reply

                    Unfortunately I do not live in Neb or NY so I could vote these guys out !

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#10 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:51 PM EST

                    It amazes me that people will scream at things like this minor inconvenience, but will overlook truly insideous and potentially rights threatening legislation like the below which I posted on another thread:

                    I seldom say things like this, but I find I must.

                    The American people in their IGNORANCE and APATHY are permitting the slow insideous shredding of the Constitution of The United States.

                    They revert to the "it's for our own safety" acceptance line. Here's a little something Benjamin Franklin said;

                    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

                    Here's something else to consider. CONGRESS is currently in the process of destroying the Posse Comitatus Act. For those who don't know, that's the law that PROHIBITS the US Military from taking actions against American citizens on US soil. In other words, they cannot perform Law Enforcement activities on US soil.
                    Please read the below and ask YOURSELF exactly what is going on.

                    Over at Wired, Spencer Ackerman gives us the long and short of things:

                    There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is "a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force" can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.

                    But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn't limited to foreigners. It's confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas' Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority."

                    An amendment that would limit military detentions to people captured overseas failed on Thursday afternoon. The Senate soundly defeated a measure to strip out all the detention provisions on Tuesday.

                    So despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill
                    that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it's pretty likely to pass.

                    And then there's this:

                    http://www.theopenglobe.org/wiki/US_Senate_passes_its_version_of_NDAA_bill,_which_would_allow_military_to_detain_anyone_on_US_soil

                    Friday, December 2, 2011

                    The US Senate on Thursday passed its version of a bill that, among other provisions, would enable the US military to indefinitely detain anyone who is deemed to be engaging in terrorist activities.

                    93 Senators voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with only seven opposing and none abstaining. (A list of who voted for the bill is available at OpenCongress.)

                    The NDAA authorises $662 billion in funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and military personnel. The act's Subtitle D, which discusses "counter-terrorism," would also allow the military to detain anyone, including US citizens, on home soil, without having to guarantee a trial.

                    The House will also vote on the bill, and then must reconcile its version with the Senate's, before the legislation could be sent to the President's desk. A roll call was held over the bill in late May in the House, where 322 Representatives supported, 96 opposed, and 13 abstained.

                    The Senate later adopted, in a 99-1 vote, a compromise amendment, stating that the NDAA is not intended to change the current legal authority of the government to imprison individuals detained in the "war on terror".

                    Obama's administration has cautioned it would veto NDAA, although some political observers say the president would sign it anyway to avoid political headaches.

                    Daphne Eviatar, an associate for the Human Rights First group, told Democracy Now that "[Obama] has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it's difficult to veto a defense spending bill that 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs."
                    Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, son of presidential candidate Ron Paul, voiced concerns over the bill on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "Under the provisions, wouldn't it be possible, then, that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

                    John McCain, who had helped write out the relevant provision in the bill, responded: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."

                    Senator Lindsay Graham, a supporter of NDAA, explained that it "basically say[s] in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and anyone can be detained, "American citizen or not."

                    Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, also expressed disappointment: "Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law."

                    As of this writing, the mainstream media were mostly silent about the "counter-terrorism" provisions in the legislation. As such, more detailed information surrounding NDAA's passage is difficult to obtain.

                    The bill, numbered H.R. 1540, was sponsored by Republican Representative Howard McKeon from California. The full legislation text is available on OpenCongress (warning: large file).

                    Be afraid people be very afraid. Your freedom and liberty WILL be shredded if this becomes law.

                    I've contacted my representatives Senators Warner and Webb, and Representative Wolf. Only Webb responded and HE is concerned about this also. So much so that he co-cponsored an amendment which unfortunately failed that would strip the NDAA of the offending language permitting the US Military to act in a Law Enforcement capacity against US CITIZENS, with NO DUE PROCESS.

                    If you want to get riled up, read the act, and then let YOUR representatives know YOU are opposed to this trampling of YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

                    YOUR FREEDOM IS LITERALLY AT STAKE.

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#11 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:54 PM EST

                    How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

                    • 1 vote
                    #11.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:23 AM EST

                    XD's language may be a bit overwrought, but the basic point is valid and does not qualify as "tinfoil hat" thinking. The sections of the NDAA (I believe sections 1031 and 1032) do in fact allow for the arrest of American citizens in America to be transferred to military custody and indefinite detention without recourse to due process based on a suspicion of terrorist affiliation. This may sound specific and minor but is insidiously dangerous. Even the military wants no part of it!

                    These fears are based on the same thinking that successfully rallied against the robo-call bill: While the language sounds rational and benign (allowing the use of cell phone robo calling to alert people to emergency situations) people are at least savvy and suspicious enough now to realize that the section, for instance, allowing companies to notify people of recalls, for instance, creates the opening to call cell phones for marketing purposes. People have to look at legislation like this and imagine how big the holes in it are. The fact that the CofC supported it set off flashing red lights for me. Businesses must already see the opportunities to use the robo call for commerce and data gathering.

                    Likewise, the relevant sections of the NDAA open a door that should not only remain closed, it should be bolted and soldered shut forever.

                    • 3 votes
                    #11.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:47 AM EST

                    All to often, the Constitution is no longer worth the paper it's written on. We have allowed this to happen and I doubt it's any longer stoppable. The greatest experiment in self government in history is dying and we poisoned it through our ignorance and inaction. To the 'tinfoil hat' people; The writing is on the wall, learn to read!

                    • 1 vote
                    #11.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:07 AM EST

                    The Constitution is not a sacred document. It was ment to be changable and adaptable changes in society.

                      #11.4 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:11 AM EST

                      ...except of course when one wants to change something sacred to someone else - like the 2nd amendment. Then the constitution might as well be carved in stone tablets. I agree. The Constitution should be adaptable and that is what the amendment process is about. The amendment we need now is to clarify that organizations (corporate, religious, labor etc) are not people and that money is property, not speech.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.5 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:17 AM EST
                      Reply

                      Fine, the bill is dead - for now. What's going to stop Congress from tacking it onto another bill, which might get lost with whatever else is in it?

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#12 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:57 PM EST

                      Yep, it'll be back. You just won't hear about it next time.

                      • 5 votes
                      #12.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:18 PM EST
                      Reply

                      Yay!

                        Reply#13 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:14 PM EST

                        A good start. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), the newest Internet censorship effort, needs to meet a similar fate.

                        • 5 votes
                        Reply#14 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:17 PM EST

                        Finally, signs of intelligence from the House.

                        As for the future, an option is to get rid of your cell phone. THEN see who's lobbying for what. Tsk, tsk.

                          Reply#15 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:53 PM EST

                          No, no, no!

                          What you need to ask is "Who is paying Terry's bills?"

                          Do you think that Terry just happened to propose this bill? Bull@!$%#! Who paid for it?

                          America - the best laws that money can buy!

                          • 5 votes
                          Reply#16 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:03 PM EST

                          the senator that brought this bill up needs to be fired and someone else hired...that man is clearly for the rich cell phone companies..clear to see that...why would anyone with common sense puch this bill unless he is getting something...and his rep said we hit and missed, you all need to be canned, you are not working for the peopel with this kind of legislation.... i get texts from companies, and I still don't know how they got this number. it is from a company about mortage help, the government probably gave them this number.

                          • 6 votes
                          Reply#17 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:22 PM EST

                          i really don't believe that even a handful of the represenatives in office now, really do it for their country, but rather power and money

                          • 9 votes
                          Reply#18 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:25 PM EST

                          they must be laying off the booze to get one right...for once

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#19 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:27 PM EST

                          re: the "Do not call" registry "you can register your home or mobile phone free"

                          https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx

                            Reply#20 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:33 PM EST

                            Bob, the only problem is......it doesn't work...they still call.

                            • 1 vote
                            #20.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:43 AM EST
                            Reply

                            Get this asses phone #'s and everyone start calling him

                            Rep. Lee Terry

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#21 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:00 PM EST

                            When I first saw this being proposed on Tuesday, I shared this on another Newsvine thread. This is from Lee Terry's own website for both of his offices.

                            Washington, DC
                            ph. (202) 225-4155

                            Omaha, NE
                            ph: (402) 397-9944

                            As I also suggested in that discussion, they are also useful numbers to have handy when signing up for store loyalty cards and when you're asked for a phone # at the checkout. If need be, have it written down, but smile and tell the cashier you JUST changed it and can't remember the number yet.

                              #21.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:47 AM EST
                              Reply

                              Just goes to show how corrupt the system is and guess how much lobbyists gave this prick

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#22 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:04 PM EST

                              Some of us would stand up against this kind of activity, but would only be told to get a job, shower and quit asking for hand-outs.

                              • 8 votes
                              #22.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:30 PM EST
                              Reply

                              "In an attempt to thread the needle and address the issues that have been brought before us, it is clear that this bill cannot be improved in a manner that will address the concerns of those involved."

                              Who brought these issues to you and what were the concerns?

                              You mean you saw that the polling on this issue across the board were so negative that people were wondering what the hell you were doing in office so you decided to kill it.

                              • 3 votes
                              Reply#23 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:21 PM EST

                              Lawmakers kill cell phone robo-call bill

                              Of course they did they don't work for us and they haven't for years.. The only thing that amazes me is that anyone could be stupid enough to think they ever did. Crooks, thieves, and liars to the last man and woman, both sides of the aisle.

                              • 3 votes
                              Reply#24 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:17 AM EST

                              If that was the case, then lawmakers wouldn't have killed the bill, but let it pass. This bill would have allowed companies to send robo-calls to your cell phone. Did you actually read the story, or try to get any facts? Generally they are crooks, but this is one time when lawmakers need to be recognized as doing something right. The ones sponsoring the bill, on the other hand......

                              • 1 vote
                              #24.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:53 AM EST
                              Reply

                              "We swung and missed," Charles Isom, communications director for Rep. Terry, told msnbc.com. It wasn't even this...... as before THIS ball even crossed the plate, the other team was already in the locker room! This person doesn't even have the ball's to make a public statement, and then hides behind his communication director? Kudos Terry! I am sure that Nebraska has your back come next election, as well as Ed Towns in NY!

                              I just wonder where Terry had / got the nad's to try to push this through? I'll bet Terry's X-Mas stocking has some user friendly cash in it! Town's as well !

                              2 morons from different political parties looking towards the same goal: $$$$$ !

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#25 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:38 AM EST

                              Politicians work for lobbying funds. Tax payer funded salaries are chump change. Ban lobbying and campaign contributions.

                              A thief takes your money. Corruption steals a country's soul.

                                #25.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:46 PM EST
                                Reply
                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.