Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against The PATRIOT Act:

March 7, 2006: Majority Of House Democrats, And Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Voted Against Reauthorizing The PATRIOT Act.  (S. 2271, CQ Vote #20: Adopted 280-138: R 214-13; D 66-124; I 0-1, 3/7/06, Pelosi Voted Nay)

March 1, 2006: 17 Senate Democrats, Including Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Voted Against An Amendment To Make The PATRIOT Act Immediately Effective. (S.2271, CQ Vote #24: Adopted 81-18: R 55-0; D 26-17; I 0-1, 3/1/06, Sen. Reid Voted Nay)

March 1, 2006: 14 Senate Democrats Vote To Kill The PATRIOT Act. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #28: Motion Agreed To 84-15: R 55-0; D 29-14; I 0-1, 3/1/06)

February 28, 2006: 29 Senate Democrats, Including Leader Reid Vote Again To Kill The PATRIOT Act. (S. 2271, CQ  Vote #23: Motion Agreed To 69-30: R 54-0; D 14-29; I 0-1, 2/28/06, Sen. Reid Voted Nay) 

December 16, 2005: 41 Senate Democrats Vote To Kill The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #358: Motion Rejected 52-47: R 50-5; D 2-41; I 0-1, 12/16/05)

October 24, 2001: 62 House Democrats Voted Against The PATRIOT Act. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #398: Motion Agreed To: 357-66: R 211-3; D 145-62; I 1-1, 10/24/01)

Democrats Proud To Oppose PATRIOT Act:

“‘We Killed The PATRIOT Act,’ Boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, To Cheers From A Crowd At A Political Rally After The Vote.”(Charles Hurt, "Patriot Act Extension Filibustered," The Washington Times, 12/17/05)

• Sen. Reid Proud To Celebrate Killing PATRIOT Act. Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “Senator, is [killing the PATRIOT Act] really something to celebrate?”Reid:“Of course it is.”(Fox News’ "Fox News Sunday," 12/18/05)

• Click Here To Watch The Video Of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) As He Celebrates The Killing Of The PATRIOT Act.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): “Look, Mr. President, we don’t think you have it right on this PATRIOT act.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 12/18/05)

Sen. Candidate Ned Lamont (D-CT): “Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the war on terror. And I think it’s a careful balance we have to have there.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/13/06)

• Lamont References Library Surveillance In Listing Objections To PATRIOT Act. Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that’s in there now that you would like to see taken out?” Lamont: “Well, certainly, there’s been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians and seeing what books that, you know, Chris Wallace’s kids are taking out and not taking out. That seemed to be casting a net a little too wide, that jeopardizes some of our liberties, sure.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/13/06)

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): “No, I think others will be for it, and I’m no longer the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. Even though I was the one four years ago now we’re, we’ve increased it tenfold. There are now ten Senators that voted against the PATRIOT Act.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 3/12/06)

PATRIOT Act Is Essential Tool In War On Terror:

The Wall Street Journal: “[W]e don’t recall most advocates of a narrowly ‘focused’ war on terror having many kind words for the Patriot Act, which broke down what in the 1990s was a crippling ‘wall’ of separation between our own intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Senator Reid was ‘focused’ enough on this issue to brag, prematurely as it turned out, that he had ‘killed’ its reauthorization.” (Editorial, “‘Mass-Murder’ Foiled,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/11/06)

• The Wall Street Journal: “The Justice Department says that without the Patriot Act it could not have broken up terrorist cells in Buffalo, Portland (Oregon), Seattle, Detroit and Virginia.” (Editorial, “Patriot Act Showdown,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/21/05)

Chuck Canterbury, National President Of The Fraternal Order Of Police: “I am writing to advise you of the strong support of the Fraternal Order Of Police for legislation to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act and make permanent its critical intelligence and intelligence-related authorities.” (Chuck Canterbury, National President Of The Fraternal Order Of Police, Letter To Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representative, J. Dennis Hastert, 6/23/05)

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: “[P]rosecuting the war on terrorism from a homeland security standpoint and a counterterrorism standpoint is huge, and that means, I might add, maintaining effective prosecution of the Patriot Act, which I believe has gone a long way towards protecting us and has allowed us to get information, to get intelligence, to get people, incarcerate them for questioning, or worse.” (MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,” 11/9/04)

Former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno: “I had advocated when I was in Washington for many of the provisions -- excuse me -- many of the provisions of the Patriot Act.” (MSNBC’s “The Abrams Report,” 8/6/04)

House Democrats On Record Against Terrorist Surveillance Program:

177 House Democrats Voted Against The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, Which Would Make It Easier To Monitor Terrorist Communications. (H.R. 5825, CQ Vote #502: Passed 232-191: R 214-13; D 18-177; I 0-1, 9/28/06)

Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) And Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) Have Cosponsored H. Con. Res. 330, “Expressing The Concern Of Congress That The President’s 2002 Order Authorizing Electronic Surveillance Of United States Persons Without A Warrant Violates Existing Law Prohibiting Such Electronic Surveillance ...” (H. Con. Res. 330, Introduced 12/22/05)

174 House Democrats Opposed Resolution Expressing “[S]upport For Intelligence And Law Enforcement Programs To Track Terrorists And Terrorist Finances …” (H. Res. 895, CQ Vote #357: Adopted 227-183: R 210-8; D 17-174; I 0-1, 6/29/06)

Sen. Feingold Says President Broke The Law, Calls For Censuring, Possibly Impeaching President:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): “[T]he president broke the law of the United States of America. … [T]his is a lot more serious. A lot more like an impeachable offense than anything President Clinton ever did.  (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/13/06)

• Sen. Feingold: “[It’s entirely] appropriate to censure the president for breaking the law ...” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/13/06)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “I agree that we ought to have a special council investigate [the President].” (ABC’s “This Week,” 1/22/06)

• Sen. Kerry: “[T]he NSA isn’t just listening to international calls but is collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans who aren’t suspected of wrong-doing.” (Sen. Kerry, Remarks At American University, Washington, D.C., 5/11/06)

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): “[I] don’t have to listen to your phone calls to know what you’re doing. … [T]he Congress should investigate this.” (CBS, “The Early Show,” 5/12/06)

Dems Question Legality Of Terrorist Surveillance Program:

Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ): “This is the most expansive, frightening, and unreasonable expansion of government power since Japanese Americans were unlawfully interned in the Second World War.” (Rep. Rob Andrews, Congressional Record, 9/28/06, p. H7864)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “This whole program has been questioned in terms of its legality …” (Sen. Kennedy, Press Conference, 2/6/06)

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): “I just want the White House to stop making up their own laws. And I’m on the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee and Judiciary Committee, and I’ve spent countless hours working with my colleagues and administrative officials saying, yes, we wanna get these guys, we wanna wiretap them and we wanna stop them but we should do within the laws of the United States because I think the British did what they did under the laws of England.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/13/06)

Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN): “At present we still have much to learn about the NSA’s domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and incessantly.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 1/16/06)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “The administration wants to have the upside of saying dozens of briefings were held, but they won’t release the list as to who was and when.” (CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” 5/11/06)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “Two things going on here, warrantless wiretaps, where the president is not following the law and says he doesn’t have to. I think that is clearly illegal.” (CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now,” 5/11/06)

• Sen. Durbin: “Now we have this data mining, where the National Security Agency is gathering more intelligence data in one place than anyone in the history of the world and is gathering the telephone records to show calls that we have made, every American has made, in our nation. I don’t know the legal authority for that second activity by the government.” (CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now,” 5/11/06)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda? If that’s the case, we’ve really failed in any kind of a war on terror.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 5/11/06)

• Sen. Leahy: “I’ve yet to hear anybody say they were briefed on the legality of it and agreed to it.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 5/14/06)

DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “[The warantless wiretaps are] totally unnecessary. … [T]he president just broke the law, for reasons that are not clear to me because it doesn’t anything to do with this national security.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 1/20/06)

Terrorist Surveillance Program Is Working, Is A Critical Tool In War On Terror:

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: “It was surveillance, electronic surveillance, peek and sneak by the way, that aided the British MI5 in their successful attempt to foil--to foil this plot.” (CNBC’s “Kudlow And Company,” 8/11/06)

Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer: “Look, there’s a reason why we haven’t had an attack since 9/11 and unfortunately we’ve learned about it by these journalistic leaks about all the secret programs. This is an extremely effective program. And the idea of having it published out there, in a sense, disarming us by letting the bad guys know how we’re tracing their wire transfers, I think is a disgrace.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 6/23/06)

Roger Cressey, Former National Security Council Director: “I think it's either going to be informants inside the plot, some form of electronic surveillance, or maybe surveillance through the Internet. But the fact that they were able to identify them early on in their process and follow them makes me believe there was a human element here.” (MSNBC’s “Countdown,” 8/10/06)

CBS’ Tracy Smith: “And the other interesting thing about when this bust was announced is that it was at the same time that several major papers had stories about how the federal government is looking into our banking records, along with our phone records. Is this also an opportunity for the government to say, 'Hey, look at this. Our surveillance tactics are working’?” (CBS’ “The Early Show,” 6/24/06)

Lawrence Eagleburger, Former Secretary Of State Under President George H. W. Bush: “In this case I personally, at least, believe that it’s absolutely critical to our security situation now in a world of terrorism …” (Fox News’ “Fox News Live,” 1/23/06)

John Schmidt, Associate Attorney General Under President Clinton: “President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.” (John Schmidt, Op-Ed, “President Had Legal Authority To OK Taps,” Chicago Tribune, 12/21/05)

Michael O’Hanlon, Democrat Advisor And The Brookings Institute Scholar: “I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you’ve gone too far if you leave that impression … I get nervous when I see the democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far.” (Charles Hurt, “Democrats To Hit White House, Republicans On Privacy Issue,” The Washington Times, 1/3/06)

The Wall Street Journal: “Nobody has suggested one single call has been listened to as part of the program reported this week by USA Today. Rather, the datamining appears to keep track, after the fact, of most calls placed to and from a great many phone numbers in the U.S. In other words, the scary government database contains the same information you see on your monthly phone bill -- slightly less, in fact, since names aren’t attached to numbers and never will be unless government computers detect activity suspicious enough to warrant some being singled out of billions of others.”  (Editorial, “The Datamining Scare,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/13/06)

The Washington Post: “[Bank surveillance] seems like exactly the sort of aggressive tactic the government should be taking in the war on terrorism.” (Editorial, “Bank Surveillance,” The Washington Post, 6/24/06)

House Democrats On Record Supporting The New York Times Leaking Classified Information:

5 House Democrats Are Cosponsoring H. Res. 904, Which Praises The New York Times For “[T]he Disclosure To The American Public That Their Banking Transactions Are Being Secretly Monitored By The Government …” (H. Res. 904, Introduced 6/29/06)

174 House Democrats Opposed Resolution Expressing “[S]upport For Intelligence And Law Enforcement Programs To Track Terrorists And Terrorist Finances As Well As Condemn The Disclosure And Publication Of Classified Information That Relate To Such Programs.” (H. Res. 895, CQ Vote #357: Adopted 227-183: R 210-8; D 17-174; I 0-1, 6/29/06)

House Democrats Proudly Defended The New York Times Leaking Classified Information:

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-WA): “In reality, it is an attempt to punish and intimidate The New York Times and other newspapers for publishing a story about the administration’s surveillance ever international financial transactions.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 6/29/06)

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY): “The article that started this all could not have been written without their active help. What ‘The New York Times’ did as well as ‘The Wall Street Journal,’ ‘The Los Angeles Times,’ ‘The Washington Post’ and newspapers throughout the country through news services was to publish a story which had in effect already been published. 1,000 times over by the White House itself and had even been on the Internet.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/29/06)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “And that is the – the role of the media. The media is providing oversight right now. Congress isn’t providing oversight. You know, it is good that ‘New York Times’ and other people in the media are starting to disclose what’s going on in violation of people’s constitutional rights, whether it is the widespread wiretapping, or also – or gathering of phone calling information, or the gathering of financial records.” (CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now,” 6/29/06)

• Rep. Kucinich: “So, what ‘The New York Times’ is being hammered for really is criticizing the administration. And now the administration is lashing out. The fact of the matter is, the media was basically a lapdog of the administration during the Iraq war. And now that they are challenging the administration, the administration doesn’t like it.” (CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now,” 6/29/06)

Sen. Leahy Said That Members Of The Press Who Leak Information Are Doing Congress’ Job. “The press is doing our work for us, and we should be ashamed of it. Shame on us in being so far behind and being so willing to rubberstamp anything this administration does.” (CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” 5/11/06)

Democrats Voted Against Military Tribunals For Dangerous Terrorists:

162 House Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Military Tribunals For Dangerous Terrorist Suspects, Including Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. (S. 3930, CQ Vote #508: Adopted 250-170: R 218-7; D 32-162; I 0-1, 9/29/06)   

• In 2004, 81 House Democrats Voted Against An Amendment That Said “The Apprehension, Detention, And Interrogation Of Terrorists Are Fundamental To The Successful Prosecution Of The War On Terror.” (H.R. 4548, CQ Vote #298: Adopted 304-116: R 223-0; D 81-115; I 0-1, 6/23/04)

32 Senate Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Military Tribunals For Dangerous Terrorist Suspects, Including Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. (S. 3930, CQ Vote #259: Passed 65-34: R 53-1; D 12-32; I 0-1, 9/28/06)   

House Democrats Support Impeachment Of President Bush For Interrogation Of Terrorists:

“Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., The Highest-Ranking Democrat On The House Judiciary Committee, Called For The Creation Of A Select Committee To Investigate ‘Those Offenses Which Appear To Rise To The Level Of Impeachment.’” (Michelle Goldberg, “The I-Word Goes Public,” Salon.com, 3/3/06)

• 36 House Democrats Have Embraced Conyers’ Plan And Are Co-Sponsoring The Bill. (H. RES. 635, Introduced 12/18/05)

H. Res. 635 Would Create “[A] Select Committee To Investigate The Administration’s … Encouraging And Countenancing Torture … And To Make Recommendations Regarding Grounds For Possible Impeachment.” (H. Res. 635, Introduced 12/18/05)

• H. Res. 635 Would Investigate “[P]reparations For Detention, Interrogation And Treatment Of Detainees, Or Lack Thereof, Made In The Planning Stages Of The Iraq Conflict Prior To March 19, 2003 …” (H. Res. 635, Introduced 12/18/05)  

Democrats Attack Rendition:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “Well, of course I’m upset about. I’m upset, particularly, because I asked Alberto Gonzales, as our nominee for Attorney General, about this whole process called rendition, where we would take a prisoner and turn that prisoner over to another country, and he told me that was not taking place. So there are a lot of unanswered questions about it.” (MSNBC’s “The Situation,” 11/8/05)

• Sen. Durbin: “Then what will happen to the prisoners? The amendment I will offer says that if we are going to be involved in the rendition of these prisoners, the transfer of these prisoners to some other place, some other country, we need to make sure that country abides by the same standards of humane conduct to which the United States ascribes. We cannot be content in sending these prisoners to some other place where they will be subjected to torture if, in fact, we have expressed a value in the United States that we are opposed to torture. That is what the amendment will say, that we make that effort to ascertain and to review regularly those detention facilities to make sure they live by that same standard.” (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 6/16/06, p. S5997)

Democrats Attack Interrogation Methods:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now that may sound like an experience from some oppressive and authoritarian regime, something that may have happened under the Taliban, something that Saddam Hussein might have ordered or in the fiction of Kafka.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/28/06, p. S10356)

• Sen. Leahy: “In the days immediately following those attacks of September 11th, I said, and I continue to believe, that the terrorists win if they fighting us into sacrificing our freedoms and what defines us as Americans. The Bush Administration’s, after-the-fact, claims about the breadth of the authorization to use military force, are the latest in a long line of - manipulations. It’s another affront to the rule of law, of American values, and traditions. We’ve also seen this same type of over-reaching and that same Justice Department’s twisted interpretation of the Torture Statue.” (ABC News’ “Special Report,” 1/24/06)  

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “The bill that has reached the floor would diminish the security and safety of Americans everywhere.” (“Bush Pushes For Senate's OK On Detainee Bill,” The Associated Press, 9/28/06)

• Sen. Kennedy Compared United States Military To Saddam Hussein.  “On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: ‘Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?’ Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management-U.S. management.” (MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,” 5/26/04)  

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): “[T]hroughout the course of our history the most respected and revered Americans have consistently warned us that the greatest threat facing or country was external but internal. We could not be conquered from abroad, but we do have the capacity to erode what constitutes this country from within. … ad that’s what we see happening here today. We see the erosion of the basic principles of this country.” (Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Congressional Record, 9/28/06, p. H7864)

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): “This Bill makes the president a dictator.” (Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Congressional Record, 9/28/06, p. H7550)

Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX): “Why are we rushing into this? … we should not be in a hurry.” (Rep. Solomon Ortiz, Congressional Record, 9/27/06, p. H7536)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “This bill is everything we don’t believe in.” (Anne Plummer Flaherty, “House Approves Bill On Terror Detainees,” The Associated Press, 9/27/06)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “You know, Wolf, we’ve fought many wars and used the Geneva Conventions standards and used them successfully to interrogate prisoners and for the conduct of our own soldiers. This was the first administration that I know of that decided that they should depart from those standards and values. That was a serious mistake. And history will not judge them well for that decision.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 7/11/06)

• Sen. Durbin: “If I … didn’t tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners [At Guantanamo] in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets In their gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.” (PBS’ “The Newshour,” 6/17/05)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[T]here is no reason … that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ...” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 12/4/05)

Senate Candidate Ned Lamont (D-CT): “Our credentials as a defender of human rights have been tarnished. We have lost the hearts and minds of most constituencies in the Middle East. … Our presence in Iraq has destabilized the entire area. American security, as a consequence, has been weakened, not strengthened.” (“Eight Questions For Ned And Joe,” The Hartford [CT] Courant, 8/6/06)

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted To Cut Intelligence Funding, Even After September 11th:

In 2003, 33 Senate Democrats Voted To Withhold $50 Million In Intelligence Funding.  (H.R. 2658, CQ Vote #287: Motion Agreed To 62-34: R 51-0; D 11-33; I 0-1, 7/17/03)

In 2003, 44 Senate Democrats Supported An Amendment That Would Have Transferred $300 Million Away From Intelligence Activities. (H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 48-3; D 2-44; I 0-1, 7/23/03)

In 1996, 154 House Democrats Voted To Reduce The Total Amount Authorized By The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization By 4.9 Percent. (H.R. 3259, CQ Vote #187: Rejected 192-235: R 37-193; D 154-42; I 1-0, 5/22/96)

In 1995, 40 Senate Democrats Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95)

In 1993, 120 House Democrats Voted To Cut Intelligence By $500 Million. (H.R. 2330, CQ Vote #393: Rejected: 134-299: R 13-159; D 120-14; I 1-0, 8/4/93)

In 1989, 31 House Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Appropriations For Intelligence And Intelligence-Related Activities Of The U.S. Government For The CIA And Related Agencies. (H.R. 2748, CQ Vote #288: Passed 369-31: R 161-8; D 208-23, 10/12/89)

During The Bush Administration, Democrats Have Voted Against Missile Defense At Least Nine Times:

In 2006, 130 House Democrats Voted To Cut Over $9 Billion Dollars From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H. Con. Res. 376, CQ Vote #155: Rejected 131-294: R 0-229; D 130-65; I 1-0; 5/17/06)

In 2006, 117 House Democrats Voted To Limit The Deployment Of Ground-Based Defense Systems And To Halt The Deployment Of Space-Based Missile Interceptors. (H.R. 5122, CQ Vote #142: Rejected 124-301: R 6-221; D 117-80; I 1-0; 5/11/06)

In 2005, 34 Senate Democrats Voted To Cut $50 Million From Missile Defense. (S. 1042, CQ Vote #311: Rejected 37-60: R 2-52; D 34-8; I 1-0, 11/8/05)

In 2005, 132 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #85: Rejected 134-292: R 1-225; D 132-67; I 1-0, 3/17/05)

In 2004, 43 Senate Democrats Supported An Amendment Offered By Sen. Levin (D-MI) And Voted To Cut $515 Million From The Missile Defense Agency’s Ground-Based Midcourse Interceptors. (S. 2400, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 44-56: R 0-51; D 43-5; I 1-0, 6/22/04)

In 2004, 118 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H. Con. Res. 393, CQ Vote #88: Rejected 119-302: R 0-220; D 118-82; I 1-0, 3/25/04)

In 2003, 66 House Democrats Voted Against A Bill That Included Over $9 Billion For The Anti-Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 1588, CQ Vote #221: Passed 361-68: R 223-1; D 138-66; I 0-1, 5/22/03)

In 2002, 56 House Democrats Voted Against A Bill That Included $7.8 Billion For Missile Defense Systems. (H.R. 4546, CQ Vote #158: Passed 359-58: R 212-1; D 146-56; I 1-1, 5/10/02)

In 2002, 156 House Democrats Voted To Block Funding For Space Based Missile Defense Programs. (H.R. 4546, CQ Vote # 145: Rejected 159-253: R 2-206; D 156-46; I 1-1, 5/9/02) 

In The Early 90’s, Democrats Cut Missile Defense Funding At Least Seven Times:

In 1994, 38 Senate Democrats Voted To Cut $513 Million From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94)

In 1994, 139 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 4301, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 155-271: R 15-160; D 139-11; I 1-0, 5/18/94)

In 1993, 44 Senate Democrats Were Successful In Cutting Funds From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93)

In 1993, 150 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 3400, CQ Vote #610: Rejected 184-248: R 33-139; D 150-10; I 1-0, 11/22/93)

In 1993, 185 House Democrats Voted To Cut $200 Million In Funding From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #414: Rejected 202-227: R 16-156; D 185-71; I 1-0, 9/8/93)

In 1993, 251 House Democrats Were Successful In Defeating A $467 Million Increase In Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #413: Rejected 118-312: R 113-60; D 5-251; I 0-1, 9/8/93)

In 1993, 153 House Democrats Voted To Cut $1.5 Billion In Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #412: Rejected 160-272: R 6-167; D 153-10; I 1-0, 9/8/93)

During The Reagan Administration, A Majority Of Democrats Voted Against Missile Defense:

During The Reagan And George H. W. Bush Administrations, A Majority Of Democrats Voted Against Missile Defense At Least 14 Times. (S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting A Yea Vote, 9/22/87; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90)

Democrats Openly Oppose Missile Defense:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): “[T]his administration’s biggest problem, in my view, it took its eye off the ball because it focused on national missile defense.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 4/4/04)

• Sen. Biden: “And so the highest priority was to deal with rogue states in their view, not with international terrorist organizations per se. That’s the mistake made. That’s where they took the eye off the ball. Whether they could have stopped 9/11, I’m not saying that. But it’s clear to me that the preoccupation with national missile defense meant that they weren’t paying as much attention to international terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.” (CNBC’s “The News,” 4/1/04)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): “Senator Jack Reed has offered an amendment on his and my behalf which would transfer some missile defense money which is not needed to go into an untested program and put it where it’s very much needed, which is on the reduction of the nuclear threat by putting more money into the cooperative threat reduction program which we have going with Russia.” (CNN’s “Live From,” 11/7/05)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Here’s what’s on their agenda: costly, new nuclear weapons we don’t need that risk fueling the new arms race, and committing to a missile defense system that could eventually cost $100 billion that doesn’t yet work and won’t stop the likely threats to our security that come through the Verrazano Bridge in a ship or that carried in in various suitcases and are assembled in a hotel.” (CNN’s “CNN Live Today,” 9/24/04)

If Democrats Succeeded In Cutting Missile Defense The U.S. Would Not Be Able To Defend Itself Against North Korea’s Missiles:

The Wall Street Journal: “The Navy had at least one ship-based Aegis missile-defense system deployed off the Korean coast, with a potential to shoot down a North Korean missile.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06)

• The Wall Street Journal: “The Aegis cruisers have successfully shot down missiles in seven of eight tests in recent years, and could become an important player in protecting allies and U.S. forces against regional missile threats.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06)

• The Wall Street Journal: “The U.S. is also dispatching PAC-3s, a more sophisticated version of the Patriot anti-missile system, to Japan. This kind of capability adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures allies and enhances American influence.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06)

• The Wall Street Journal: “Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06)

• The Wall Street Journal: “[W]ith President Clinton in office, Democrats starved the program of funds.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06)

Rep. Pelosi Doesn’t “Really Consider Ourselves At War”:  

Less Than One Year After 9/11, Rep. Pelosi Said She Did Not Consider Us At War. Rep. Pelosi: “I don’t really consider ourselves at war … We’re in a struggle against terrorism throughout the world …” (Miles Benson, “Democrats Show Greater Audacity In Criticizing Bush,” Newhouse News Service, 5/6/02)

Rep. Pelosi Does Not Believe National Security Should Be A Campaign Issue In 2006. Rep. Pelosi: “It [the election] shouldn't be about national security.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Press Conference, 9/14/06)

Rep. Pelosi Sees No Benefit In Catching Bin Laden:

Rep. Pelosi Says Capturing Bin Laden Doesn’t Make U.S. Any Safer. Rep. Pelosi: “[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done … is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.” (Rep. Pelosi, Press Conference, 9/7/06)