Posted by Congress Watcher on July 2, 2008 at 11:13 am · Filed under House legislation
Marine mammals are in serious trouble. Fish populations are so gravely depleted that Pacific grey whales have been seen migrating north with such severe starvation that their ribs are showing. Seal species around the world are being devastated by climate change.
What’s the response of the Republican Party? Aim lower.
Last year, Alaska Republican Congressman Don Young introduced H.R. 1007, a bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1992. Young’s legislation would remove the official goal of zero deaths of marine mammals as a result of fishing. If passed, the law would also make economic convenience a legally acceptable justification for the killing of marine mammals in the process of commercial fishing.
Young’s legislation contains the following bizarre excuse for legalizing the slaughter of marine mammals: “Species and populations stocks of marine mammal that have reached historic levels are impeding the recovery of endangered species and threatened species through predation or competition in the ecosystem.”
Think about this for a second: Which marine mammals that have reached historic levels are threatening to cause the extinction of other species? Are sea lions eating too many salmon, for instance?
If a marine mammal is at a population level that is truly in line with its historically sustainable levels, then it can’t be to blame for the endangered status of their prey or competing species. After all, historically, those species fit together just fine, ecologically speaking. No marine mammal species, historically speaking, drove any other existing marine animal to the brink of extinction…
…unless you count human beings taking to the sea in their boats as a marine mammal. It’s human activity that has upset the ecological balance of the oceans, not wild marine mammals.
In the case of sea lions and salmon, for instance, it’s human beings who have driven salmon populations to the brink, through pollution, dams, and overfishing. Yes, sea lions who find the oceans stripped nearly clean of fish are desperate to eat as many salmon as they can, but it’s not the sea lions who are to blame for the problem.
Luckily, Don Young’s legislation isn’t faring much better than marine mammals themselves. It’s been over a year now since Young introduced his bill, and in all that time, he hasn’t managed to convince even one other member of the House of Representatives to sign on to H.R.1007 as a cosponsor. The legislation is stuck in committee, and that’s where it should remain, forgotten and left to die.
Posted by Congress Watcher on July 1, 2008 at 8:09 am · Filed under House campaigns, House legislation
If you want to think about great American traditions, there’s no tradition more central to the tradition of being an American than the Bill of Rights. The guarantees of freedom established in the Bill of Rights are what made America great. Among the amendments in the Bill of Rights is the fourth amendment, which reads,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Every single aspect of the fourth Amendment is violated by the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304, which was passed by the House of Representatives a week and a half ago and will be voted on by the Senate a week from now.
- The FISA Amendments Act retroactively legalizes gigantic dragnet searches of millions of personal communications by Americans, not particularly noting the places, persons or things to be targeted.
- The FISA Amendments Act supports searches and surveillance of Americans’ papers and “persons” without any search warrant
- The FISA Amendments Act removes the requirement of probable cause, allowing government spying and physical searches without any proof that the people being searched and spied upon are even suspected of a crime
The FISA Amendments Act is an insult to the American tradition of constitutional freedom. Yet, many members of Congress have already voted in favor of the proposed law.
One of those members of Congress is Mike Pence of Indiana. Pence represents the 6th congressional district in his state, but he hasn’t accomplished much for his home district over the last couple of years - unless you count giving a speech praising Garfield, the cartoon cat as an accomplishment.
Pence is being opposed in the election this year by Barry Welsh, who is running a campaign founded upon respect for the American tradition of liberty rooted in the Constitution. Would Barry Welsh have voted for the FISA Amendments Act?
I spoke to Mr. Welsh on the subject yesterday, and here’s what he had to say:
I would not have been able to vote for the bill in its current configuration. A couple of things really troubled me, and the telecom immunity is probably the main troubling spot.
It’s not a situation where I want to necessarily be prosecutorial towards the telecoms. My concern deals with the attempted acquisition of immunity. My concern is that the immunity is not so much for the telecoms as it is possibly as a cover for the current administration.
The reason I say that is that I go back to the Nixon years in Washington D.C., and in the Nixon White House. When Nixon resigned, everything was forgotten, if you will. There were few investigations after that, and it seemed that once the President left town, everything was rosy, and that wasn’t the case. We didn’t do due diligence during the Nixon Administration, and several of those players popped their heads up again throughout the Reagan and this, the George W. Bush Administration.
So, I don’t want to see the same thing happen again. I want to make sure that we’ve got all the people that have bent the law for their own benefit and taken advantage of the people, I want to make sure that we don’t allow those people to slip away again. Quite honestly, I have a feeling that the immunity through the telecom is more of a potential cover for the Administration than necessarily for the telecom community.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 30, 2008 at 12:35 pm · Filed under House legislation
There are two subtly different meanings of the word compromise. One meaning, used by those politicians of the FISA Amendments Act, suggests reconciliation between two opposing sides.
That sounds so nice, doesn’t it? Who could argue against coming together, so that both sides can have a little bit of what they want? Well, to tell the truth, I could.
Sometimes, compromise is a downright rotten idea. Let’s say that you meet up with a cannibal who says that he wants to kill you and eat you. Would you seek a compromise? Would you say, “No, I’m sorry, I don’t want to let you kill and eat me, but for the sake of common ground, why don’t I cut off my left hand so that you can have a snack?”
Sometimes, I have a feeling that the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives might think that compromise would be a good idea. I wouldn’t.
This brings me to the second meaning of compromise: The creation of a dangerous vulnerability. For example, if the pipes from a sewage treatment plant got crossed up with the rinsing system at the strawberry packing plant next door, we could say that the food safety protocols at the strawberry packing plant had been compromised. Or, in the case of the cannibal, if you went ahead and cut off your left hand to provide a snack, we could say that your circulatory system had been compromised, or that your ability to play the guitar had been compromised.
It’s this second kind of compromise that was achieved with the passage of the FISA Amendments Act by the U.S. House of Representatives. In this case, it’s the fourth amendment to the Constitution that has been compromised. That’s the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees protection from search and seizure without a warrant.
There are some things in life that just shouldn’t be compromised: Things like whether a cannibal gets to eat part of your body, or whether strawberries should be rinsed in sewage, or whether the Constitution is the law of the land in the United States. If these things are compromised, grave threats to life and liberty result.
That was the idea behind the statement made by Elijah Cummings, U.S. Representative from Maryland, after the FISA Amendements Act, H.R 6304, was passed by the House of Representatives on June 20,2008. Cummings wrote,
“Today is a very sad day for the people of America, as their government has decided to further infringe upon the protections afforded to us by the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Our Founding Fathers recognized our right to privacy as being so critical that they had the foresight to make it an Amendment in one of our most revered and fundamental documents—the very foundation of our nation’s democracy.
My colleagues and I were elected to the U.S. Congress to represent the will of the people and to protect U.S. citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. I am disappointed in the compromises that were made in this legislation, because when it comes to our civil liberties, there should never be any compromise. I will relentlessly fight to ensure that surveillance becomes as transparent as possible to provide the oversight needed to prevent its abuse against U.S. citizens.”
Arizona Against John McCain Button
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 29, 2008 at 9:27 pm · Filed under House legislation
For the last couple of months, Republicans in Congress have been whining and complaining that gasoline prices in the United States would go down a whole bunch, if only the the Democrats in Congress would do only something to increase the amount of oil drilling taking place on federal lands.
Well, wouldn’t you know it, but last Thursday, the Democrats in Congress did just that. They proposed a law that would increase the amount of drilling for oil taking place on federal lands.
Funny thing - almost all the Republicans voted against the bill. Why? Well, H.R.6251, called the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, moves to increase the amount of drilling for fossil fuels on federal lands without increasing the amount of land available for oil drilling. Instead, the law would force oil drilling companies to stop slacking off and to use the federal lands they’re already leasing more efficiently.
You see, although oil companies complain that oil supply is low because there isn’t enough public land available for them to drill on, those same companies are moving as slow as slugs to actually begin drilling on the public land they’re already leasing. The huge majority of land leased for the purposes of oil exploration hasn’t actually been tapped by the oil companies yet. They’re just sitting on that land, not drilling it.
For the sake of increasing the supply of oil, as Republicans in Congress have said that they want, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act would have banned the federal government from granting new leases to companies that have not been drilling on the leases they already have in a timely manner. It makes perfect sense. If an oil company isn’t even using the leases of public lands they already have, why should they take on yet more leases… unless what those oil companies really want to do is just squat on their leases of public lands with oil under them only in order to prevent the oil from being drilled, thus decreasing supply and artificially driving up the cost of petroleum products so that they can make a bigger profit without doing any more work.
Those right wing members of Congress who voted against the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act were doing the bidding of the big oil companies, regardless of the harm to the larger American economy. That’s really scummy. In fact, that kind of oil-slick corruption is downright crude.
Take note: They’re not all Republicans. 19 Democrats jumped the tracks to vote against this work ethic for oil companies. The members of Congress who had the gall to vote against the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act and its attempt to force oil companies to become more efficient in bringing oil out of the ground and to the gasoline pump were:
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 28, 2008 at 8:15 am · Filed under House legislation
Over at Protect America Act, they have taken it upon themselves to recognize the good work of those members of the House of Representatives who voted one week ago against the FISA Amendments Act.
The FISA Amendments Act does not just grant retroactive immunity to giant telecommunications corporations who gave private files containing information about the personal communications of millions of Americans, although that is part of the FISA Amendments Act. The proposed law also gives the Attorney General of the United States, and through him the President, the power to search through Americans’ homes without a search warrant or any proof of suspicion of a crime. The same kind of power is granted for electronic espionage against Americans’ emails and telephone calls as well.
The FISA Amendments Act completely unravels the fourth amendment to the Constitution. It makes protection from unreasonable search and seizure a mere privilege for those that please the government, not an inalienable right.
If the FISA Amendments Act passes, there will be true freedom for the American people will be destroyed, and the accountability to the law for powerful politicians and corporations will be lost.
Thank you to the following members of the House of Representatives for voting against this unwise scheme to sacrifice the Bill of Rights on the altar of Homeland Insecurity.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 26, 2008 at 11:03 am · Filed under House legislation
Congressman Neil Abercrombie represents Hawaii in the U.S. House of Representatives, but on June 20, 2008, he also represented all Americans who believe that freedom is the best source of security. Abercrombie voted against the FISA Amendments Act, criticizing the changes that the proposed law would make to the essential fabric of American freedom:
“These changes will not make Americans any safer from terrorists. They simply reflect George W. Bush’s belief that the President has virtually unlimited power to ignore Constitutional protections for individual privacy and civil rights.”
It’s like Congressman Abercrombie says - the FISA Amendments Act establishes a Big Brother spy network that enables the President of the United States to spy on practically anyone he wants, while being accountable to no one. The FISA Amendments Act takes the FISA court, and makes it a mute observer, unable to stop lawbreaking even when the White House admits that illegal spying is taking place. There can be no more certain privacy, if the FISA Amendments Act is passed.
President George W. Bush seems to think that he can keep secrets from the American people, but that the American people are not entitled to their own private lives. Abercrombie noted this dangerous quirk of character, stating,
“President Bush seems unnerved at the prospect of American citizens filing lawsuits to protect their Constitutional rights. I wish he was as concerned about protecting citizens from giant corporations as he is about protecting giant corporations from citizens.”
Thanks to Representative Abercrombie for his important defense of the fourth amendment and its guarantee that we shall all be protected from unreasonable search and seizure of the sort that have been typical of the Bush warrantless wiretapping program.
Missouri Ike Skelton Bumper Sticker
Posted by Congressional Aid on June 24, 2008 at 4:44 pm · Filed under House campaigns, House legislation
In Illinois’ 5th Congressional District, Rahm Emanuel is running for re-election as a member of the Democratic Party. But Rep. Emanuel has a problem — a constitution problem. You see, on June 20 2008, Emanuel violated his Oath of Office in he solemnly swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Rep. Emanuel violated that oath when he voted for H.R. 6304, a bill that shreds the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 6304 gives the stamp of law to warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance and even physical searching of foreigners and American citizens alike. Sure, a judge can object under the provisions of H.R. 6304. But the president’s Attorney General can determine that for the public safety the information gathered unconstitutionally by the president can be used anyway — and only the Attorney General can determine whether the Attorney General has been right to do so. What a kangaroo process! What a derangement of the power of American government. What an endangerment of American civil liberty.
Rahm Emanuel supported all this when he voted YES to H.R. 6304. So why should you support Rahm Emanuel?
You don’t have to — Alan Augustson is running as a Green Party candidate for Congress, and he opposes legislation like the FISA Amendments Act. To turn this country back in the right direction, consider giving Alan Augustson your time, energy, and your vote in November of 2008.
Posted by Congressional Aid on June 23, 2008 at 10:18 am · Filed under House legislation, Power Plays
The Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body, but deliberation was nowhere in sight on Friday, June 20. On that day, only 15 minutes were given to members of the House of Representatives to identify problems with H.R. 6304, the bill that unconstitutionally nullifies core provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Considering that the bill had been introduced to the House only 24 hours before, there was hardly enough time for members of the House to read the bill, making matters bad enough. But over and over, those who voiced dissent against H.R. 6304 were interrupted before they could finish their very brief remarks.
Consider the remarks of Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, or at least as much of his remarks as he was able to spurt out before being shoved aside:
Unfortunately, the negotiators who brought this to the floor bought into the flawed assumptions of the Bush administration that because we live in a dangerous world, we must now redefine the Fourth Amendment and thus the fundamental relationship between the government and its people.
If this bill becomes law it will perhaps be the only lasting legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration’s overhaul of national security policy: a congressionally-blessed distortion of congressional checks and balances. It permits massive warrantless surveillance in the absence of any standard for defining how communications of innocent Americans will be protected — A fishing expedition approach to intelligence that we know will not make Americans more safe.
Its court review provisions are weak and narrowly defined. Now, I know some of those who negotiated this bill say some court review is better than no court review; that’s only true if the judge’s hands aren’t tied in the court review process. They are in this bill. There’s a fundamental American principle that those who search, seize, intercept and detain should not be the ones who decide who are the bad guys….
I imagine that Rep. Holt would have concluded by saying something like:
But this bill does just that. H.R. 6304 removes from the judiciary the ability to review the Attorney General’s determination of cause to search and seize the electronic communications and physical property of foreigners and citizens alike. If this bill passes, the Attorney General will determine whether the Attorney General’s determination is correct. It is Kafkaesque in its circular bureaucratic logic. It is a slap in the face to the principle of checks and balances. It is an invitation to the abuse of power. And that is why I intend to vote against this bill.
I imagine that, but in actuality I have no idea how Rep. Holt intended to finish, because Rep. Holt was not allowed to even complete his thought. Instead, he was interrupted by a supporter of H.R. 6304 who spoke:
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California…
This was an instance of serious disrespect to Rush Holt, to the integrity of the Congress, and to the American concept of deliberative democracy. But more than that, it was an indication that those who shoved H.R. 6304 through the Congress were trying to keep something about the bill hidden and unspoken. Read the bill to find what a majority of Congress tried to hide.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 22, 2008 at 8:22 am · Filed under House legislation
Those politicians who try to justify the complete abandonment of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that comes with the passage of the FISA Amendments Act say that it’s okay, because they have received assurances from George W. Bush has promised not to abuse the unrestrained spy powers the FISA Amendments Act grants. What measures there are in the FISA Amendments Act do not truly restrict the power of the White House to engage in politically-motivated spying - they only provide window dressing for that spying.
The apologies for this clearly unconstitutional law are hollow and thin. George W. Bush’s promises have been false too many times in the past to believe. Besides that, President Bush still has not come clean and provided Congress with full information about how far he has actually gone already in spying against the American people.
That’s the main idea that came from Congressman John Dingell when he rose to speak on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act on Friday:
“…it contains a provision that will grant immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted the President with his illegal and unauthorized warrantless wiretapping program. I have consistently said that it is not appropriate for Congress to grant these companies immunity for their actions without having an understanding of what it is that they did. This is not only because it will hold the telecommunications companies accountable for their actions, but because it is the only way of finding out just how extensive the President’s illegal wiretapping program really was. In other words, this provision will enable the Bush administration to continue suppressing facts and information about the Government’s own misbehavior and wrongdoing.”
Congress still doesn’t know how far President Bush went in violating the law to spy against American citizens. Why then, is Congress granting Bush permission to keep on spying against Americans? Where is the oversight that Congress is supposed to pursue?
Hear more about it in our third That’s My Congress podcast.
South Carolina Liberal Button
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm · Filed under House legislation, Senate legislation
A small post-mortem for the fourth amendment to the Constitution, which was thoroughly nullified yesterday with the House’s approval of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act:
Pete Visclosky, a Democrat who represents the first congressional district of Indiana, was not able to make it to Capitol Hill for the vote on H.R. 6304. He has, however, registered an official statement in the congressional record that if he had been able to be present for the vote, he would have voted against the bill.
Part of me wonders why Congressman Visclosky couldn’t be there for such an important vote. However, I know that his vote against would not have made the difference on its own. So, I give some small measure of thanks to Representative Visclosky for at least not joining the stampede of panicky Democrats who sold the Constitution down the river just for the sake of a talking point on the campaign trail.
Next entries »
| | | 
