Keep the wiretaps and keep the intelligence programs
CASEY: Rick, you just talked about Iran, calling it "Islamic fascism" [instead of terrorism]. What we need, Rick, is not a change in the terminology, we need to change the tactics. We should be finding and killing Osama bin Laden, then we can hold a
seminar on whether he's a dead terrorist or a dead fascist.
SANTORUM: My opponent has no plan. All you suggested with your plan is more Special Forces. Do you support more intelligence gathering?
CASEY: Absolutely.
SANTORUM: The Democratic Party
has gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs.
CASEY: You're debating me, not the Party. We should keep the programs and keep the wiretaps.
SANTORUM: I think you just fundamentally misunderstand
the problem. You're saying that somehow or another the terminology doesn't matter. You believe that we're going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't. I think we'll win or lose this war right here in America.
The PATRIOT Act reauthorization is a victory in the war on terror & a triumph of bipartisanship. This should clear the way for the renewal of this vital law and will continue to give law enforcement the tools that they need to target terrorists and
prevent another terrorist attack. We cannot let the PATRIOT Act expire & we cannot give the terrorists an opening to plan another attack. I am pleased that the reauthorization addressed some of the issues regarding the protection of rights of Americans.
Source: BoomanTribune.com, "The Quotable Bob Casey Jr."
Apr 2, 2006
Don't censure Bush for domestic spying
Sen. Russell Feingold floated a resolution censuring Pres. Bush for his domestic spying program. "I don't think I'd support it," said Casey, who has campaigned with Feingold. "We should be making sure we give law enforcement and federal agents the tools
they need to fight terrorism." Asked whether he nonetheless agreed with Feingold's overarching message that the wiretapping program is illegal, Casey punted the question. "Well, that is a judgment that lawyers are going to make," said Casey, a lawyer.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
Mar 20, 2006
Urgent focus on infrastructure protection
Bob Casey also knows that Washington needs to do more to protect the United States and our interests abroad from terrorist attack.
More needs to be done to protect the rail system, ports, chemical plants, and nuclear power plants. This is an especially urgent problem for Pennsylvania.
Source: Campaign website, www.bobcaseyforpa.com, "Issues"
Feb 22, 2006
Ensure that veterans' health care receives proper funding
Bob Casey will fight to ensure that veterans' health care receives proper funding. Our veterans - especially those returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan - deserve access to the high quality health care that was promised to them.
Bob Casey knows that when our men and women leave the service, our country's obligations continue. The VA should never suffer a funding shortfall like the one experienced this year.
Source: Campaign website, www.bobcaseyforpa.com, "Issues"
Feb 22, 2006
More G.I. benefits for college, retirement, and disability
Bob Casey also believes:
the transition from the military to the VA should be seamless;
mental health care should be expanded to all VA hospitals;
private doctors should fill prescriptions without requiring a physical;
G.I. benefits shouldn't count against college financial aid; and
no veteran should ever have to choose between disability pay and retirement pay.
Source: Campaign website, www.bobcaseyforpa.com, "Issues"
Feb 22, 2006
Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army.
Opponents argument for voting NAY:Sen. INOUYE. From the Spanish-American War in 1898, until the end of World War II, we exercised jurisdiction over the Philippines like a colonial power. In July 1941, we called upon the Filipinos to volunteer to serve the US under American command, and 470,000 Filipinos volunteered. An Executive Order in 1941 promised Filipinos if they fought for us, they could become citizens of the US and get all of the veterans' benefits. But in 1946, the Congress rescinded the 1941 act. Well, this veterans bill has a provision in it--a provision of honor--in which, finally, after six decades, we will restore our honor and tell the Filipinos: It is late, but please forgive us. Proponents argument for voting YEA:Sen. BURR. This bill is so much more than just a pension for Philippine veterans. It is $332 million in Philippine benefits, of which $221 million is devoted to a new special pension that does not exist [previously.
Only that $221M would be cut]. Regardless of the outcome of my amendment, I support final passage of this bill. But we do have a difference as it relates to the pensions. I believe that there was not a promise made. We did not imply it. Those who made the decision on the 1946 Rescissions Act, they looked at the history very well.
Sen. CORNYN. The problem I have with this bill is that the US Treasury is not bottomless, and the funding that is being provided to create this new pension would literally be at the expense of US veterans. The $221 million that is addressed by Sen. Burr's amendment would actually go back in to supplement benefits for US veterans. And while we appreciate and honor all of our allies who fought alongside of us in WWII, certainly that doesn't mean we are going to grant pension benefits to all of our allies, [like] the British or the Australians. Vote for the Burr Amendment because certainly our American veterans should be our priority.
Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. FEINGOLD: The Protect America Act (PAA) we passed last year was sold repeatedly as a way to allow the Government to collect foreign-to-foreign communications without needing the approval of the FISA Court. Now, this is something all of us support, every one of us. But the PAA actually went much further. It authorized new sweeping intrusions into the privacy of countless Americans. The bill the Senate is considering to replace the PAA does not do nearly enough to safeguard against Government abuse. So this amendment would provide those safeguards.
[The PAA allows] acquiring all the calls and e-mails between employees of a US company and a foreign company, with no requirement to get a warrant and no requirement that there be some link to terrorism. So any American who works at a company that does business overseas should think about that.
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:
Sen. BOND: The purpose of this bill is, and always has been, to enable the intelligence community to act to target foreign terrorists and spies overseas.
The amendment, as it is drafted, will have a totally unexpected impact. It is difficult to explain, in an unclassified session, why this amendment is unworkable. There are only certain communications which the intelligence community is lawfully permitted to acquire, and which it has any desire to acquire, because to acquire all the communications from all foreigners is an absolutely impossible task.
I cannot describe in a public setting how they go about ascertaining which collections are important. But to say that if Osama bin Laden calls somebody in the US, we cannot listen in to that communication, unless we have an independent means of verifying it has some impact or a terrorist threat--That is the most important communication we need to intercept.
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.
A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences?
Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.
Reference: Protect America Act;
Bill S.1927
; vote number 2007-309
on Aug 3, 2007
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.
Vote on an amendment, SA2032, which amends HR1585, the Defense Authorization bill: To limit the deployment of a unit or individual of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom to no more than 12 consecutive months; and to limit Marine Corps deployment to no more than 7 consecutive months; except in time of national emergency.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June.
This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine.
Reference: Hagel Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill;
Bill SA2032 to HR1585
; vote number 2007-243
on Jul 11, 2007
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.
Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively:
I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
II: Homeland Security Grants
III: Communications Operability and Interoperability
IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program
V: Enhancing Security of International Travel
VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters
VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
VIII: Private Sector Preparedness
IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing
X: Incident Command System
XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection
XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies
XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication
XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention
XVII: 911 Modernization
XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.
Reference: Improving America's Security Act;
Bill S. 4
; vote number 2007-073
on Mar 13, 2007
