At Ryan for Kentucky, we believe that the playing field has been tilted against working families for far too long. My whole life, it seems that war has been waged on union workers and workers attempting to form new unions. I have witnessed this personally in a union fight. Although initially, 80% of the workers at our warehouse signed on to become union, the long process allowed the company to come in and “behind the scenes” peel off these votes. How? By turning worker against worker. Promising promotion of certain workers, and higher wages and more benefits if the union failed.
In the end, After workers being bribed and intimidated on the day of the union vote, it failed by one vote. Then, a month after the union vote, ou company announced it was shutting down our warehouse and moving elsewhere.
Yes, the playing field has long been tilted against workers in this country organizing new unions. The Bush years have only seen it grow worse. Our Representative, Exxon Ed Whitfield has been a constant enemy of workers having the right to organize for better lives.
He voted against the Employee Free Choice Act which would put an end to the problems I just described. Yes, to millionaires like Ed Whitfield, employees should not have the right to negotiate with corporations and companies that pull in billions of dollars a year for better wages and benefits.
But it goes much deeper than that. Exxon Ed Whitfield never met a free trade agreement he didn’t love. Forget the fact that American high-paying middle-class jobs that have been the backbone of this country since WWII are being shipped overseas by greedy corporations. Forget the fact that Free Trade has cost the American worker dearly, Exxon Eddie doesn’t even believe in helping those whose livelihoods were lost by the corporate sponsored government policies of greed, and profit:
Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization.
H.R.3920: Trade and Globalization Act of 2007: Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to allow the filing for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) by adversely affected workers. Revises group eligibility requirements for TAA to cover: (1) a shift of production or services to abroad; or (2) imports of articles or services from abroad.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. RANGEL: In recent years, trade policy has been a dividing force. This legislation develops a new trade policy that more adequately addresses the growing perception that trade is not working for American workers. The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act would expand training and benefits for workers while also helping to encourage investment in communities that have lost jobs to increased trade–particularly in our manufacturing sector. The bill is a comprehensive policy expanding opportunities for American workers, industries, and communities to prepare for and overcome the challenges created by expanded trade.
Reference: Trade and Globalization Assistance Act; Bill HR3920 ; vote number 2007-1025 on Oct 31, 2007
Lets look back at all the bad deals Exxon Ed Whitfield has voted for to destroy the American middle-class, and preserve corporate profits at all costs. His old buddy Tom Delay, whom he Tried to bail out and voted with 91% of the time co-sponsored this one:
Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.
Reference: Bill sponsored by DeLay, R-TX; Bill HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-436 on Jul 24, 2003
And it just goes on and on:
Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.
Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.
Reference: US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement; Bill HR 2739 ; vote number 2003-432 on Jul 24, 2003
Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: implementing free trade with protections for the domestic textile and apparel industries.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Tom DeLay [R, TX-22]; Bill H.R.4759 ; vote number 2004-375 on Jul 14, 2005
Approves the Agreement entered into with the government of Peru. Provides for the Agreement’s entry into force upon certain conditions being met on or after January 1, 2008.
Prescribes requirements for:
enforcement of textile and apparel rules of origin;
certain textile and apparel safeguard measures; and
enforcement of export laws governing trade of timber products from Peru.
We need a leader in Washington who doesn’t scorn and ridicule American workers daily. We need a leader in Washington who believes that America should indeed have a middle-class:
It is not hard to figure out that outsourcing American jobs to third world countries is destroying our middle class. We must stop rewarding companies who send our jobs oversees with tax cuts and begin rewarding companies who invest in our nations future.
As a member of a staunch union family, and a former union member myself, I understand first hand the need for a living wage as well as benefits and training programs. I will work tirelessly to fight for the rights of the working person. For far too long, the citizens of Kentucky have been victimized by the million dollar boy’s club. It is time for change!
New leadership brings promise to Kentucky, and American workers!!:
Old leadership brings about the same old complaints:
Please, help us win this race and bring a young, energetic, and most of all compassionate leader who isn’t afraid to fight for workers and Democratic values to Washington:
Exxon Ed Whitfield has been trying to clean up his voting record for this election year. He knows it is a bad year for Republicans, and that he has been a shameless enabler of every failed policy of the Bush Administration. All the election year scuffling to clean up his record cannot hide the fact that he has been a constant, bitter opponent to reform of our healthcare system, and of providing equal access to those in poverty as those with wealth to healthcare. Lets look at some of Exxon Eddie’s votes to limit the access of healthcare to working Americans
Oh goodness, where to begin? There have been so many bad votes by Ed Whitfield on this issue, it boggles the mind. However, lets start with Whitfield’s vote way back in 2000 to try and turn over Medicaire Drug coverage to the insurance companies, who we all know can be trusted to look out for our interests over their profits. (NOT):
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage.
HR 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act, would institute a new program to provide voluntary prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries through subsidies to private plans. The program would cost an estimated $40 billion over five years and would go into effect in fiscal 2003.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Thomas, R-CA; Bill HR 4680 ; vote number 2000-357 on Jun 28, 2000
You see, in the twisted world of men like Exxon Ed Whitfield, profits for Insurance and Oil companies always come before people. Think I am exagerrating? Lets keep looking at the record Eddie wants us to forget:
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs.
Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill that would call for the Food and Drug Administration to begin a program that would permit the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and South Africa.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Gutknecht, R-MN; Bill HR.2427 ; vote number 2003-445 on Jul 24, 2003
Yes, in Exxon Eddie’s world, the sick and elderly should be required to pay the high prices of drugs to protect the profits of drug companies, even when safe, cheaper drugs are available from trustable countries who don’t have a powerful drug lobby.
It gets even worse. Not only does Exxon Eddie believe Americans should pay higher drug prices to protect profits, evidently he believes some Americans who desperately need prescription drugs should not have access to them:
Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Starting in 2006, prescription coverage would be made available through private insurers to seniors. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of an estimated $35 in 2006. Individuals enrolled in the plan would cover the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves, and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2,250. The government would offer a fallback prescription drug plan in regions were no private plans had made a bid.Over a 10 year time period medicare payments to managed care plans would increase by $14.2 billion. A pilot project would begin in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for doctors and hospitals costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. The importation of drugs from Canada would be approved only if HHS determines there is no safety risks and that consumers would be saving money.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL; Bill HR.1 ; vote number 2003-669 on Nov 22, 2003
That makes perfect sense in the world of Exxon Ed Whitfield, Insurance profits before people, at all costs. Even if it means denying people the medications they desperately need and struggle to afford. However, it continues to get much worse. Not satisfied in denying life-giving medications, Exxon Eddie would deny treatment of the working poor too:
Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay.
Vote to pass a resolution, agreeing to S. AMDT. 2691 that removes the following provisions from S 1932:
Allows hospitals to refuse treatment to Medicaid patients when they are unable to pay their co-pay if the hospital deems the situation to be a non-emergency
Excludes payment to grandparents for foster care
Reference: Reconciliation resolution on the FY06 budget; Bill H Res 653 on S. AMDT. 2691 ; vote number 2006-004 on Feb 1, 2006
In the world of Exxon Eddie, it makes perfect sense to let those who are making a profit decide whether it is an emergency for those who may not be able to pay to recieve treatment.
In keeping with the theme of protecting Insurance profits at all costs, once again we see how Whitfield would keep drug prices high, to protect his big money contributors:
Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.
Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.
It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs’ price schedule.
Reference: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act; Bill HR 4 (“First 100 hours”) ; vote number 2007-023 on Jan 12, 2007
Now, if you think it could not get much worse than this, unfortunately you are sadly mistaken. Exxon Ed Whitfield puts profits over people, even CHILDREN!!! Yes, in the twisted world of men like Ed Whitfield, profits are so much more important than even the health of our children that he would vote not once, but twice to make sure that Insurance Company profits are protected at all costs, even over the well-being of American children:
Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.
Allows State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President’s veto message [from HR976]:
It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.
It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.
Reference: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R. 3963 ; vote number 2007-1009 on Oct 25, 2007
Of course, this bill was passed by more compassionate members of Congress, but vetoed by the biggest corporate profiteer of them all, President Bush:
Veto message from President Bush:
Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country’s health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage–not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.
Reference: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R. 3963 ; vote number 2007-1009 on Oct 25, 2007
Yes, it would be a shame if uncovered children recieved coverage without huge profits for the Insurance companies. From those who are always lecturing us about our “Christian values” it would be a shame if they valued children as much as Christ did. From Mark 10: 13-16:
13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
Yes, Christian values dictate that the children be brought to be healed, but Exxon Eddie voted against Christian values on children not once, but twice:
Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids.
OnTheIssues Explanation: This vote is a veto override of the SCHIP extension (State Children’s Health Insurance Program). The bill passed the House 265-142 on 10/25/07, and was vetoed by Pres. Bush on 12/12/07.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: This Act would enroll all 6 million uninsured children who are eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under existing programs.
Even after changes were made to accomodate President Bush’s concerns:
The bill makes changes to accommodate the President’s stated concerns.
It terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year.
It prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000.
It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.
It encourages securing health insurance provided through private employer.
The result? Another victory for big insurance, and another defeat for true Christian values:
So, why would Exxon Eddie cast all these votes against the healthcare of even children if he is so Christian? Well, that is because the only god he worships is Mammon.
So as you can see, Exxon Eddie is clearly lined up for profits, and against people.
Luckily, this time Exxon Eddie has a real challenge. Heather Ryan believes all Americans should have a fundamental right to healhcare, whether it brings insurance profits or not:
It is an absolute travesty that 50 million Americans struggle without health care in the wealthiest nation in the world. What’s worse is when our representative votes against improvements in access to health services for children and the poor. Unfortunately, these are both realities that we’ve experienced under the current leadership. I propose that health care for every American is more important than tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
It is time we had a representative who thinks about more than just how much money he can make when he helps pass legislation that benefits drug and insurance companies. As the leaders of the free world, it is an embarrassment that we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer health care for our citizens.
In fact, near the end of my interview with her, Heather Ryan states that the first thing she wants to work on in Washington is the introduction of healtcare for all Americans:
New leadership will mean a new direction for Kentucky, and our country:
Please, go here to help us win this race. With the resources to get Whitfield’s terrible record out to the 63% of registered Democrats in this district, we can easily win this race, and alleviate Exxon Eddie’s complaints:
Please go here and support fellow grassroots Democrats in their quest to expand our Congressional majorities and move our country in the direction of progress for everyone:
People can say what they want about Heather Ryan, and her campaign, Ryan for Kentucky. The fact of the matter is that this young lady is not only extremely smart, and compassionate, but courageous. She knows full well that the Republicans in this district will once again try to use social issues to divide us and defeat Progress in this country.
One of these issues that the Republicans use is Abortion. The mere dropping of the “A” bomb gets emotions and tempers on both sides of that issue boiling. Having worked for NARAL, trying to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies, hence abortions, Heather wanted to get out ahead of Exxon Eddie, and pre-empt the divisive campaigning that we know he will use. Please see Heather’s remarks here:
You know, a few months ago I volunteered to work for Heather Ryan, and it seems that everyday, she does something else that makes me so very proud of that decision. She has shown great courage in breaking with most of our Party’s leadership on FISA, and now in trying to explain with sanity her position on a very divisive issue.
I believe Heather is exactly right on this issue. The Republicans controlled our government for years before 2006 and none of them ever did one thing to try and outlaw abortion. Definately not Exxon Ed Whitfield. I believe a lot of the reason is that they wanted a wedge issue to constantly pull out of their “bag of tricks” to divide America and win elections. They did nothing for the right-wing activists that elected them on this issue, and still seek the moral high ground.
Heather is right. We can find common ground. Instead of arguing on the legality of abortion, why can’t we all work together to curtail the NEED for this controversial practice? Why can’t we invest in the education and healthcare of our own people, particularly our young to stop unwanted pregnancies and end much of the need for abortions? Why do the Republicans slash funding for programs that do just that if they are so “Pro-Life”?
Heather Ryan is just what we need in Washington. A Democratic leader that seeks to unite our country on even the most controversial issues, and find real solutions to our problems, not talking points to attack the other side with. Heather represents a new generation of leadership, my generation stepping to the plate to do their civic duty in the governing of our country, and quite frankly I am proud of what I see.
Please help us in electing a great grassroots Democrat with the intelligence, drive, and most of all GUTS to lead and fight for us on all issues!! You can do so here:
I will make an admission. I don’t want anyone to think that here at Ryan for Kentucky we are not fair. Our Congressman, Exxon Ed Whitfield, besides supporting Big Oil, Energy, and their record profits has managed to do a little good. Yes, Exxon Eddie has managed to be a defender of horses. Now, at Ryan for Kentucky, we love animals too, and applaud Whitfield for being a defender of horses. But, we must ask, what about the PEOPLE?
Yes, Whitfield won praise for his work on horses, we cannot deny. He even won a huge endorsement for this work. However, we would like to ask the Congressman, what about the people of this district? Where was Exxon Eddie when the PEOPLE of this district needed him? In fact, where was he when the Constitution needed him?:
On June 20 2008, Representative Ed Whitfield broke faith with the Congressional Oath of Office, in which every member of Congress solemnly swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Rep. Whitfield swore to do this, and yet failed to vote against H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act. The FISA Amendments Act not only makes the misnamed Protect America Act permanent, but even expands upon it in its gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 6304 sets up a system:
* For the federal government to spy on you electronically
* Reading your email
* Listening to your telephone calls
* Watching what web pages you visit
* Following your financial transactions
* More than that, for the federal government to engage in physical searches
* Of your home
* Of your office
* Of your car
* Without any explanation of why they are doing it
* Without the ability of a judge to even stop it
* Without oversight by Congress
* Letting the government use information it obtains illegally
* Giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for helping the government do this, even when it was expressly against the law to do so
When a President of the United States has this kind of power at his disposal, she or he cannot be stopped. The power of the president becomes total and the president becomes a totalitarian. By failing to oppose this bill, Representative Ed Whitfield aided and abetted the advent of American totalitarianism.
It seems very ironic to us that Exxon Eddie, who constantly seeks to lecture all of us on the size of the Federal Government votes to vastly expand the powers of that entity. Yes, the people of this district needed their Constitutional rights protected, and Exxon Eddie was nowhere to be found:
Rep. Ed Whitfield failed to vote against the ironically named Protect America Act. The Protect America Act is a law now passed by both houses of Congress which replaces judicial warrants with executive prerogative and substitutes blank checks for reasons. The Protect America Act gives the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence the power to spy on your emails, your web surfing, your telephone calls and other electronic communications. All this is carried out without a warrant, which is required by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
There is no supervision of the spy programs put in place by Gonzales and McConnell, except by Gonzales and McConnell. No one has the power to stop them any more. They can search your records, sift through your private messages, watch you go from web page to web page, on the pretext of protecting America from terrorists, all without a search warrant. No one has the power to tell them no.
Gonzales and McConnell have the power under the Protect America Act to order any American to help them conduct their electronic spying against other Americans. Under the new law, if they order you to take part in their spying operations, and you say no, they can throw you in prison. If you do not keep their spying on other Americans a secret, even from your family, they can throw you in prison.
The Protect America Act institutes Big Brother government in the United States. It betrays American liberty. And Representative Whitfield failed to vote against it.
Of course his opponent, Heather Ryan spoke out in support of our Constitution. From an email:
Later this week, the Senate will be considering passage of the compromise on the FISA Bill. Since many voters in the First Congressional District of Kentucky have contacted me wondering what my stance on this legislation is, I felt compelled to speak on this issue.
While I was in Washington on that terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001 when planes crashed into the World Trade Center and in Western Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, I can understand the passion that has fueled this bill. Having said that, I must urge the Senate to reject this FISA compromise as proposed and passed by the House of Representatives with H.R. 6304.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, Exxon Ed Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans that lecture us about the size of the Federal Government propose, and push through the House of Representatives a bill that broadens the powers of the Federal Government vastly. I think this is one issue that Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree on. There are certain things that none of us should ever compromise on, and the Constitution is one thing I will never compromise on as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
His work against the Constitution did not stop there:
When the Head Start program of early childhood education came up for reauthorization in May of 2007, Rep. Howard McKeon tried to offer an amendment that would provide special permission for religious organizations to engage in employment discrimination when using government-provided funds to hire Head Start Workers. That sounds complicated, but what it boils down to is that the McKeon amendment would have let churches take government money to hire workers for the government-funded Head Start program, and yet refuse to hire particular workers because they were from the “wrong” religion.
The Head Start program is not a religious program in its content, so there is no substantive reason for this discrimination to occur. If churches want to run a preschool and discriminate on the basis of religion, they can already do so — they just have to pay for it themselves. If churches want to grab government money to run a government program, on the other hand, then the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is perfectly clear — government resources can’t be used to establish advantages for a religion or its adherents.
The McKeon amendment would have let government resources be used to discriminate against people who were not religiously correct. It fortunately was rejected in a roll-call vote. But Rep. Ed Whitfield didn’t help in that regard. By failing to vote against the McKeon amendment, Rep. Whitfield showed a disregard for the constitutional basis of American government.
For more than three decades, the United States has been a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, better known as the Non-Proliferation treaty. This treaty requires the United States to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” George W. Bush has been fond of using images of mushroom clouds and nuclear proliferation to push the country into war. Yet under George W. Bush, the United States has failed to pursue negotiations in good, middling or even bad faith on nuclear arms or nuclear disarmament, marking a violation of this treaty which is essential to international peace.
H.Res. 68 is a bill that calls on President Bush to issue a report indicating the means by which the United States will meet its numerous, legally-binding treaty obligations. Asking the president to obey the law seems like a no-brainer, right? Well, not according to Representative Whitfield, who has failed to cosponsor this bill. When you get the chance, please contract Rep. Whitfield and ask what gives.
Of course the last thing in the world Exxon Eddie would want to be caught doing is questioning any of the failed policies of the Bush Administration.
Whitfield also failed to lead in insuring that every vote cast in America is counted fairly in
Any reasonable person who believes that trust in America’s democratic institutions is important can see the value in being able to determine with assurance how a person has voted. It should be a matter of common sense, for instance, that when an electronic voting machine malfunctions and loses votes (as has happened in the past), a backup paper record of the actions of the machine would help elections officials set things right and make sure that every person’s vote has been counted. Yet today, despite a history of malfunctioning electronic voting machines, there is no requirement for a backup paper trail. It’s as easy as attaching a printer to a voting machine. It’s a matter of simple common sense for those who are interested in reliable verifiable, democracy. So why has Congressperson Whitfield failed to lend formal support to H.R. 811, a bill which would require the establishment of such a paper trail? It’s a mystery to me. Ask Congressperson Whitfield to leave a verifiable paper trail of support for H.R. 811 — in the Congress, that’s called cosponsorship.
H.R. 897 Whitfield failed to stand up to Corporate corruption and war profiteering:
H.R. 897 is a bill before the House of Representatives that would “require the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to provide to Congress copies and descriptions of contracts and task orders in excess of $5,000,000 for work to be performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.” When Republicans controlled the Congress, they killed efforts to uncover corporate corruption and war profiteering. If there is really nothing going on with the contracts, then why is there a problem with looking at those contracts? Only those who think there is a problem and want to hide the problem could be opposed to Congressional oversight. Ed Whitfield apparently is comfortable with something being hidden, since the name of Rep. Whitfield does not currently appear in cosponsorship of this legislation. Contact Rep. Whitfield and ask why.
Of course, it would be a shame if Whitfield stood up to the failed leadership of President Bush, and the fleecing of the American taxpayer by Corporate America.
With H.R. 1255 Whitfield once again showed failure of leadership, and cowered to the Bush Administration:
H.R. 1255, a bill that passed the house on a vote of 333-93 in the House of Representatives, was the work of a large congressional majority which believes that White House records belong ultimately to the people of the United States. When he entered office, George W. Bush issued an edict which assigned past presidents and their heirs the right to do with presidential records what they personally saw fit. This is a recipe for historically disastrous revisionism. H.R. 1255 reverses the Bush edict, returning the ownership of presidential records to the people of the United States and making them available (after a period of time) for complete and accurate, not gauzily redacted, historical research. Representative Whitfield failed to vote for this bill, prioritizing the prerogatives of those in power above the historical value of accuracy and the political value of openness.
H.R. 1309 proved once again that Whitfield supports a move toward an authoritarian government, in another capitulation to President Bush:
H.R. 1309, a bill that has passed the House on a vote of 308-117, removes the authoritarian stain placed on the government of the United States shortly after George W. Bush took office — well, at least one of them. It used to be that citizens could access government documents through the Freedom of Information Act unless the government could affirmatively demonstrate the need for the document to remain private. George W. Bush changed that with an executive order in 2001, mandating that unless a citizen affirmatively demonstrated a lack of national security reasons for the disclosure of a document, the government could keep its documents off-limits. This is another authoritarian step in a nation founded on principles of openness and liberty. Ed Whitfield failed to vote for this bill. Rep. Whitfield made a most unfortunate stand against openness in favor of authoritarianism.
Even more disturbing are Whitfield’s failed leadership for children at home and abroad. Just look at H.R. 2620:
H.R. 2620, The Child Soldier Prevention Act, prohibits the government of the United States of America from providing military aid to any foreign government that uses child soldiers in its military, paramilitary forces, or other official or sanctioned armed groups. The Child Soldier Prevention Act also requires the Executive Branch to research and publish reports on the use of child soldiers around the world, providing important information that can be used to more effectively counter the use child soldiers.
There are some clauses that make the bill less strong than it could be. One gives the President of the United States to issue a waiver to the law when he decides that giving military aid to a government that uses child soldiers is in the interest of the United States. However, the President is required to register every such waiver, and report on the justifications for each waiver to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. Another clause permits support for armies that recruit volunteer child soldiers as young as 16 — because that’s what the U.S. Military currently does.
These clauses make the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007 an imperfect piece of legislation, but it’s pretty darned good, and it’s the only legislation to even address the issue. It is therefore a piece of legislation that all decent Americans ought to be willing to support, regardless of political party affiliation.
So why hasn’t Representative Whitfield offered cosponsorship of even this mild, unobjectionable bill? Something seems askew with Representative Whitfield’s priorities.
Not only did he fail to show leadership for children around the world, but he voted against children right here at home:
Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids.
OnTheIssues Explanation: This vote is a veto override of the SCHIP extension (State Children’s Health Insurance Program). The bill passed the House 265-142 on 10/25/07, and was vetoed by Pres. Bush on 12/12/07.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: This Act would enroll all 6 million uninsured children who are eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under existing programs.
PRESIDENT’S VETO MESSAGE: Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage–not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. [But this bill, even with changes, does not meet the requirements I outlined].
Yes, Exxon Ed Whitfield actually stood with a failed President and the Insurance Companies over even uncovered children, AMERICAN CHILDREN!!!
What a sickening disgrace!! Exxon Ed Whitfield is so out of touch with the voters of the First Congressional District of Kentucky, ITS EMBARRASSING!!!
Heather Ryan on the other hand, believes all Americans have a fundamental right to healthcare, whether the insurance companies profit from it or not:
Health care:
It is an absolute travesty that 50 million Americans struggle without health care in the wealthiest nation in the world. What’s worse is when our representative votes against improvements in access to health services for children and the poor. Unfortunately, these are both realities that we’ve experienced under the current leadership. I propose that health care for every American is more important than tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. It is time we had a representative who thinks about more than just how much money he can make when he helps pass legislation that benefits drug and insurance companies. As the leaders of the free world, it is an embarrassment that we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer health care for our citizens.
As you can see, although Exxon Ed Whitfield has shown leadership for horses, and has followed blindly behind President Bush and the insurance companies, he has failed to show leadership in defending the very rights that generations of Americans have fought and died for. Exxon Ed Whitfield offers more of the same failed leadership, and cowardice in standing up to his party when it is wrong. Heather Ryan has already shown the courage to stand up for what is right against many in her party’s leadership on FISA. She offers courage, and new leadership for the voters of Kentucky’s First Congressional District:
Please join us in the fight to oust Exxon Ed Whitfield and replace him with a “Fighting Democrat”, who is not afraid to fight for what is right. Heather Ryan is a veteran, mother, and citizen of the First Congressional District that brings new ideas, new hope, and most of all courage to the citizens of this district. Please, help us fight for Progress, and expanded Congressional majorities here:
You know, during the campaign for Kentucky’s First Congressional seat thusfar, we have been showing all the many different things that Heather Ryan, our Democratic challenger, and Exxon Ed Whitfield, our Corporate Republican Congressman disagree on. They are extremely numerous. While work prevented me from making it to Murray today to see the Freedom Fest parade, the good hillbilly Jim Pence, and Heather Ryan actually finally found something in which the fiery redhead, and the Bush/McConnell lackey agree on. Follow along for the vid.
Yes, Heather Ryan and Exxon Eddie finally agree. From Jim Pence:
Indeed!! Whitfield must rank as one of the most ineffective members of Congress ever. It is so nice to know that he will be voting for Heather, to change Washington!! Maybe next, he can consider a contribution to Americans for Ryan:
Since he doesn’t live in the district, or the state for that matter this is an excellent way for him to contribute for change in Washington!! By the way, we could use help from Democrats too!!
Now that Heather and Exxon Eddie have finally agreed, lets look at a few things they disagree on:
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
HR3685: Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated. Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Inapplicable to associations that are exempt from religious discrimination provisions.
So, Exxon Eddie hates women? Well after the first of November, he will really hate one particular red-headed one!!
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks.
Vote to pass a bill that would repeal an export tax break for U.S. manufacturers ruled an illegal trade subsidy by the World Trade Organization, while providing for about $140 billion in new corporate tax cuts. Revenue raising offsets would decrease the cost of the bill to $34.4 billion over 11 years. It would consist of a buyout for tobacco farmers that could not go over $9.6 billion. It also would allow the IRS to hire private collection agencies to get back money from taxpayers, and require individuals who claim a tax deduction for a charitable donation of a vehicle to obtain an independent appraisal of the car.
Reference: American Jobs Creation Act; Bill HR 4520 ; vote number 2004-259 on Jun 17, 2004
Here at Ryan for Kentucky, we believe Corporations have seen plenty of tax breaks and Corporate Welfare. It is time to give those breaks to working Americans.
Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization.
H.R.3920: Trade and Globalization Act of 2007: Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to allow the filing for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) by adversely affected workers. Revises group eligibility requirements for TAA to cover: (1) a shift of production or services to abroad; or (2) imports of articles or services from abroad.
Reference: Trade and Globalization Assistance Act; Bill HR3920 ; vote number 2007-1025 on Oct 31, 2007
Here at Ryan for Kentucky, we believe not only in helping our workers who have lost their jobs to free trade agreements, but we believe any new agreements should be seriously considered and rejected without protections for the American Middle Class.
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.
Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require a registered lobbyist who bundles contributions totaling over $5,000 to one covered recipient in one quarter to:
file a quarterly report with Congress; and
notify the recipient.
“Covered recipient” includes federal candidates, political party committees, or leadership PACs [but not regular PACs].
Reference: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act; Bill H R 2316 ; vote number 2007-423 on May 24, 2007
At Ryan for Kentucky, we believe that lobbyists have plenty of money and power, and it is time to restore some of that power to the American people. Of course, Exxon Eddie has plans for that money:
Walker also noted Whitfield could use the disparity in fundraising to spread the wealth to other candidates, if his re-election campaign does not require them – a sign Ryan’s campaign may have some convincing to do.
“To the extent he has funding available, he may offer support to other candidates who share his
views on national issues and who may need financial support, but the primary purpose of his reelection campaign funds is to assist with his own reelection campaign,” said Walker.
You see, supporting your fellow grassroots Democrats in Kentucky’s First not only helps win our race, but keeps Exxon Eddie from using his million dollars of special interest money from effecting other races. Ryan for Kentucky is a win/win situation for national Democrats!!
Happy Independence Day everyone!! Today our nation celebrates it’s Declaration of Independence from the British Empire. After much sacrifice from that generation, our nation would go on to become the first that was built upon the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment. Our nation would become a bastion of freedom, and the “city on the hill” for the world to aspire to.
Yes, our nation is the greatest in the world. One of the greatest things about our nation is that we can choose who will represent us in our Government. When we have failed leadership, every two, four, and six years Americans have the right to vote them out.
Well, right here in Kentucky’s First Congressional District, we have a failed Congressman, Exxon Ed Whitfield. He has spent the last several years rubber-stamping every failed policy of the Bush Administration. His election year Renaisance cannot conceal his real voting record, one that blocks any kind of Progressive change, and keeps the power with the status-quo.
Whitfield has made many terrible votes that in my opinion run contrary to what American liberty is all about. There is a world of difference between himself, and our candidate, Heather Ryan. Lets look at some of them.
First and foremost, is fighting for our veterans that have provided us with liberty. Although Whitfield changed his tune in an election year on the 21st Century G.I. Bill, his record speaks for itself.
Whitfield voted against a $53 Million boost for Veteran’s Health care and benefits. The vote was against an amendment to the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs funding bill to add $53 million for veterans health care and other benefits, offset by a 9% cut to BRAC. The amendment would add $8 million for combat-related trauma care, $6 million for poly-trauma centers to support wounded troops once they return to their homes, $9 million for VA medical and prosthetic research and $7 million for 100 additional staff who process claims for compensation and pension benefits. Finally, the amendment would provide $23 million to help approximately 4,100 souses of service members with children whose spouse died during the War on Terrorism between September 11, 2001 and November 30, 2004 by making them eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. The amendment failed 213-214 – Whitfield was the deciding vote which denied these benefits to injured veterans. (Leadership Document, “Medical Quality Democratic Amendment Final.”) [HR 2528, Vote #224, 5/26/05; Failed 213-214; R 19-210; D 193-4; I 1-0]
Whitfield voted for the budget that cut veteran’s programs. Voted for final passage of the $2.6 trillion budget conference report for 2006. The report cut Medicaid spending by $10 Billion, spent every penny of the Social Security surplus, increased the national debt by $167.5 billion over 5 years and paved the way for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Futhermore, the conference report cut funding for veteran’s health care by $13.5 billion over five years. Yet the budget still found room for $106 Billion in tax cuts for those who need it the least. (House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, “Summary and Analysis of FY 2006 Budget Resolution Conference Report.” 4/28/08) [HCR 95, Vote #149, 4/28/2005; Passed 214-211; R 214-15; D 0-195; I 0-1].
Whitfield Opposed Increased Spending on Veteran’s and Homeland Security. The vote was against an amendment to the 2006 budget resolution to increase spending levels by $15.8 billion. The proposal boosted education, training and social services programs by $8 billion, provided $2.9 billion more veteran’s health care and $1.7 billion more for homeland security than the GOP resolution. Furthermore, the amendment would have reduced the deficit by $10 billion and raised $25.8 billion by reducing tax cuts for those earning more than $1 Million. The amendment was rejected, 180-242. [HRS 95, Vote #82, 3/17/2005; Failed 180-242; R 3-218; D 176-24; I 1-0].
Every day we see reports about how our veterans services have fallen into severe disrepair. The men and women who served this country deserve better. Our VA system needs a complete overhaul; from the GI Bill to health care to disability benefits, without a modernized system, we do those who served our country a grave disservice. Veterans deserve better.
Next we have Whitfield’s votes to help ensure that he, and his colleagues aren’t subjected to the same eithics as the rest of us:
Whitfield voted to Weaken House Ethics Rules. The new rules would allow lobbyists to cater meals to members’ offices and let charities pay for lawmakers to travel and stay at golf resorts and other locales. The measure would allow outside interests to pay for “perishable food or refreshments offered to members of an office.” For example, a lobbying firm representing pharmaceutical interests sent in dinner for House speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-IL) staff while they were working late on a prescription drug bill. The weaker rules passed, 221-203. Whitfield has since traveled abroad at the expense of lobbyists who sit on the boards of non-profit organizations. [HRS 5, Vote #6, 1/4/2005; Passed 220-195; R 220-0; D 0-194; D 0-1].
Whitfield Voted Against Creating a Bipartisan Ethics Task Force. The panel would have equal representation of Republicans and Democrats to make recommendations to restore confidence in the House ethics process. The measure was defeated. [HRS 153, Vote #70, 3/15/2005; Passed 223-194; R 223-1; D 0-192; I 0-1]
Heather Ryan has not, and will not take lobbyist money or gifts. This is because she believes the citizens of the First Congressional District should be her special interest group, not Exxon, Chevron, or the RNC.
Even worse yet, is Whitfield’s votes to undo our Constitutional protections. On Independence Day, these should show great importance:
Whitfield Voted to Limit Patients’ ability to Sue HMOs.
[HR 2563. Vote #329, 8/2/2001; Passed 218-213; R 214-6; D 3-206; I 1-0]
Voted for an amendment to the patients’ rights bill to limit lawsuits against health maintenance organizations. Opponents of the proposal charged it would set up obstacles for patients seeking to enforce their rights, give advantages to HMOs and preempt patient protection laws in states such as California, Georgia, Texas and New Jersey. Specifically, the amendment would allow HMOs or employers who make medical decisions to transfer a case filed against them to federal court. It also provides that when cases against health plans are tried in state courts, the proceedings would be conducted under federal rules that offer greater protections for them than state laws. It would limit non-economic damages to $1.5 million.
At Ryan for Kentucky, we believe that the Constitution has provided checks and balances for our government to operate upon. Circumventing them runs contrary to the ideals this country was founded on. Juries were empowered by the Constitution with certain powers that should not be infringed upon.
Whitfield also proudly voted to shred our Constitution once again:
Whitfield voted for and the House passed, H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008. This bill closes a terrorist loophole in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that requires American intelligence officers to obtain a warrant before intercepting terrorist communications abroad.
Of course, Heather stood with Progressives, and all those everywhere who believe in upholding our Constitution and the Protections therein. From an email:
Later this week, the Senate will be considering passage of the compromise on the FISA Bill. Since many voters in the First Congressional District of Kentucky have contacted me wondering what my stance on this legislation is, I felt compelled to speak on this issue.
While I was in Washington on that terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001 when planes crashed into the World Trade Center and in Western Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, I can understand the passion that has fueled this bill. Having said that, I must urge the Senate to reject this FISA compromise as proposed and passed by the House of Representatives with H.R. 6304.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, Exxon Ed Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans that lecture us about the size of the Federal Government propose, and push through the House of Representatives a bill that broadens the powers of the Federal Government vastly. I think this is one issue that Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree on. There are certain things that none of us should ever compromise on, and the Constitution is one thing I will never compromise on as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
We need to expand our Congressional majorities with newer, and better Democrats who understand our ideals and have the courage to fight for them in Washington. Heather represents a new generation of leadership standing up to fight for our party and country, and frankly I think her time, and ours has come.
This Independence Day, why not make an investment in an awesome grassroots Democrat that believes in our ideals, and most importantly has the courage to fight for them? No donation is too small and will be put to work immediately to retire one of the worst Republican Congressmen sitting, and to restore the liberties generations of Americans have fought for.
Exxon Ed Whitfield has had this seat for a long time and made a lot of votes. During his tenure, he has been a constant rubber-stamp for the failed policies of the Bush Administration. Despite his election year “Renaisance” Exxon Eddie can’t hide from his real record. He has consistenty gotten it wrong time and time again.
At Ryan for Kentucky the one thing we can assure you is that their are deep, fundamental differences between our candidate, Heather Ryan and Exxon Ed Whitfield, and the Republican Party. We have a different set of priorities to fight for.
You see, Heather Ryan is not beholden to the Pharmeceutical Industry, the Big Oil Lobby, or the Chamber of Commerce. In Congress, Heather Ryan will be beholden to the working Americans that put her there. Yes, there are deep, fundamental differences in these two candidates.
During his time, the only problem Exxon Eddie has had with Pharmaceuticals is that he wanted to stop their illegal sale by introducing this legislation:
Congressmen Ed Whitfield on Thursday introduced legislation that will help prevent prescription drug abuse. The legislation, entitled the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (NASPER), would create a federal grant program to help establish or improve state-run prescription drug monitoring programs.
The legislation will give physicians the resources they need to treat patients while also giving law enforcement additional tools to prosecute individuals who are illegally using controlled substances. Similar legislation introduced by Whitfield passed the House last year.
The very Congressman that seeks to lecture us on Terrorism with the FISA Bill, and illegal drugs with the bill above voted against combatting both.
Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.
Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs.
Reference: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act; Bill HR 4 (“First 100 hours”) ; vote number 2007-023 on Jan 12, 2007
Of course, if prices are negotiated, Exxon Eddie and his buddies can’t fleece the American consumer and taxpayer.
Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Starting in 2006, prescription coverage would be made available through private insurers to seniors. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of an estimated $35 in 2006. Individuals enrolled in the plan would cover the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves, and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2,250. The government would offer a fallback prescription drug plan in regions were no private plans had made a bid.Over a 10 year time period medicare payments to managed care plans would increase by $14.2 billion. A pilot project would begin in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for doctors and hospitals costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. The importation of drugs from Canada would be approved only if HHS determines there is no safety risks and that consumers would be saving money.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL; Bill HR.1 ; vote number 2003-669 on Nov 22, 2003
Great job Eddie!! Lets limit the access to people who really need them!!
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs.
Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill that would call for the Food and Drug Administration to begin a program that would permit the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and South Africa.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Gutknecht, R-MN; Bill HR.2427 ; vote number 2003-445 on Jul 24, 2003
Again, profit lines, special interest contributors, and stock options!!
You see, at Ryan for Kentucky, we believe that the abuse of Prescription Drugs is a problem, but we believe it is a bigger problem when the people that actually need drugs cannot afford them. We believe these drugs should be cheaper for them, not more expensive.
We believe in trying to help people who are elderly and sick. We don’t think they should be held at the mercy of the Government or the Insurance Lobby because of their conditions. Most of all, unlike Exxon Eddie:
Whitfield voted for and the House passed, H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008. This bill closes a terrorist loophole in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that requires American intelligence officers to obtain a warrant before intercepting terrorist communications abroad.
Later this week, the Senate will be considering passage of the compromise on the FISA Bill. Since many voters in the First Congressional District of Kentucky have contacted me wondering what my stance on this legislation is, I felt compelled to speak on this issue.
While I was in Washington on that terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001 when planes crashed into the World Trade Center and in Western Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, I can understand the passion that has fueled this bill. Having said that, I must urge the Senate to reject this FISA compromise as proposed and passed by the House of Representatives with H.R. 6304.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
Now, we need you to believe in us. Support grassroots Democrats in Kentucky’s First District and help us with the resources we need, and we will work hard and expand our Congressional majorities. No amount is too small and is greatly appreciated!!:
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it’s been all over the map. I’ll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the “good guys” are.
First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
Now, not all of these statements were made this past week. Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air. But hey, they’re on record. So here goes, alphabetically by district. If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.
It was Ben Franklin who said that “any man who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of security deserves, neither.” We seem to have a country full of people who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of an empty promise of security. As a free country, founded on concepts like justice and liberty, the de-evolution of our free society should not be tolerated by any people of conscience.
CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)
I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn. Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.” We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.
In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.
….
But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.
….
And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.
And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.
Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.
We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.
In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.
Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?
No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.
Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.
Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.
You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.
We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects — unless you believe that you and I are terrorists. I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans. On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.
George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations. Does that comfort you? Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American. Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.
I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws. No one is above the law. If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American. Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.
When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal. We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.
What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it. The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period. There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.
As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works. You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.
FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.
As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.
Said land conservation activist Shafroth: “While this current bill takes some small steps to weaken the authority of the president to unilaterally spy on Americans, it does not go far enough in protecting our civil liberties.”
Internet entrepreneur Polis said that “phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.”
And former state Senate President Fitz-Gerald criticized the bill’s “de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law.”
“The government has no right to listen and wiretap any phone without judicial oversight,” she said.
….
Fitz-Gerald said the House version of the legislation amending FISA was better than an earlier U.S. Senate version, but “it still was not acceptable and I would have rejected the House measure.”
Shafroth said he would have voted against the bill because “many of the protections in the bill are superficial and there are too many avenues left to the president to unconstitutionally spy on American citizens.”
Polis said the nation must restore people’s trust in their government, but “rushing FISA reform through Congress is not the answer.”
It is disappointing that some of our Democratic leaders are rushing FISA reform through Congress. I strongly oppose telecom immunity that paves the ground for the further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties.
Our Democratic leaders in Washington should stand firm against allowing Republicans and the Bush Administration to violate the civil liberties of our citizens any more than they already have; phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held fully accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.
Rather than providing cover for the Bush administration, our leaders should show backbone and not allow FISA reform to be rushed through Congress.
The fear mongering tactics of President Bush and his cronies on Capitol Hill are tired; the American public now understands that we can have security at home while also protecting the civil liberties of our law abiding citizens.
I had left a message there asking her position on this FISA bill. She personally took the time to call me back and told me she is against this thing and would have voted Nay!
“In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide– not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration’s request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles.”
What, exactly, is the Right Wing’s problem with the Fourth Amendment? Why do they constantly seek ways to evade and subvert the Fourth Amendment? It seems to have worked pretty well, for over 200 years. And over 99% of the time, the federal judges give all POTUS the warrants he wants.
What it really comes down to is that they want a dictatorship. It’s issues like this one, where the Right has to choose between conservatism and fascism, when you see their true colors.
As the “New York Times” said in its June 18 editorial: “The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.”
….
The problem is special interest money, Curtis said, coupled with a business-as-usual attitude in Washington.
“This is the root cause of the Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Republicans. They are all eating from the same trough,” Curtis said. “This is why we need leadership that will stay true to our values rather than cater to special interest contributors.”
“The laws that were created under FISA were sufficient to meet our country?s national security needs. What the Bush administration has done, again, is present Americans with a false choice between national security and civil liberties, while this bill increases neither. I oppose any broad retroactive immunity provided to companies who may have broken the law. The legal purpose of immunity is to use the protection granted by such immunity as an inducement to divulge information about what occurred. Immunity in this case would do the opposite: it would shut down any investigation into what actually occurred.”
GA-08: Robert Nowak (primary challenger to Jim Marshall)
The latest demand from President Bush, that the US Congress shield telecommunication providers from liability for breaking federal law, is a real step backwards in the important mission of authorizing an effective intelligence surveillance program. Congress not give blanket immunity for any unlawful acts, it should renew its call for increased oversight of the telecom providers that may or may not have broken federal surveillance laws.
Further, the US Congress must not budge in insisting that any surveillance program with the capability of eavesdropping on US citizens be subject to court oversight.
The Congress should insist on codifying in the statute a court order requirement for any surveillance done on American citizens.
This last August, Representative Marshall voted for a temporary bill that allowed for expanded wiretapping and surveillance on Americans without a court order. Allowing that regime to continue is unacceptable.
GA-12: Regina Thomas (primary challenger to John Barrow)
After reading the FISA bill — Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — I thought “This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment [right of] privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States.” I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.
The Congress is considering a bill that guarantees retroactive immunity for telecom companies who participated in the President’s illegal wiretap program, and that fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. This measure would require the courts to grant immunity to big telecom companies for their past illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, and authorize future surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their rights.
This is wrong. No one should get a free pass for breaking the law. Iowans and all Americans have a right to live their lives without government intrusion on their privacy.
If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure. I believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability is needed. No President should ever have unchecked power. Americans in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive branch. As Americans, we can protect ourselves without destroying our Constitutional rights. We need to focus on the very real threats we face, and not waste our resources on spying on loyal Americans.
Today, Rep. Mark Kirk once again showed how out-of-step he is with Illinois’ 10th district, by siding with the Bush administration to protect telecommunications companies who participated in illegal spying on American citizens. Kirk has received over $80,000 in contributions from the telecom companies he has continually voted to protect.
Coming in the wake of his vote against outlawing waterboarding, Kirk has shown that he is more interested in following the Bush administration than upholding our international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, and protecting our constitutional rights.
Congressional Candidate Dan Seals (IL-10) released the following statement today:
“While I was pleased to see the House Democrats stand their ground against granting amnesty to the telecommunications companies who broke the law, I was disappointed to see Mark Kirk side once again with the Bush administration and his campaign contributors over the 4th amendment.
“The U.S. Constitution is not a discretionary document. It’s time we elect leaders with the courage and independence to stand up for our most sacred rights. When I go to Congress, I will stand up for our Constitution and ensure that no one is above the law.”
I like Brad Ellsworth, and yes he is that good looking in person, I like Baron Hill, and always have, I like Joe Donnelly and have since the first time I met him, and the same for Senator Bayh, but I really, really, really, have a fondness for this piece of paper called the United States Constitution.
I would not have voted as they did on FISA, but I am more liberal than they are and we all know that, you know that, I know that, and they know that. Some in Indiana are afraid of being called a Liberal and the word comes from Liberty, so I think we should embrace it.
….
Brad, Baron and Beyond, (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, it’s the blogger in me) voted the way they did because of National Security, and I do not hate them for voting what they believe, because I believe in National Security too, but I also understand the potential for expansion of the FISA bill, and the potential danger. I love this country but since 2000, have feared this government and do not agree with granting this administration any additional power. It is my hope that in 6 months this will not be re-newed, it is my fear that it will.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
Personally I’m tired of Tim Walberg and George W. Bush using fear about our national security to score cheap political points. Congress has passed legislation to ensure that tools are in place to protect our country’s safety, but Walberg and Bush seem more interested in protecting big corporations that have helped them listen to our phone calls, read our emails, violate our privacy, then they are about protecting law-abiding citizens. I believe our Constitution, and our rights, including our right to privacy, are worth fighting for. If our government or big corporations break the rules, they should be held accountable.
I would have voted no. Let me start out by saying that, I am absolutely committed to keeping America safe, taking on the terrorists, and defending our national security. I was a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve, and I spent time over in the Persian Gulf. I understand what kind of pressure our people are under to get good intelligence. Good intelligence is absolutely critical to the safety of our soldiers and to protecting our country. We can’t function without it.
We definitely need to update FISA to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, while also absolutely guaranteeing that Americans’ rights are protected.
There are important updates that we need to make to FISA, but I can’t support the retroactive immunity – and I sincerely hope that those provisions get stripped out in the Senate.
I am troubled by the House passage of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. There is much we can do to prevent terrorism, but such measures do not require the sacrifice of fundamental constitutional freedoms which our country was founded upon. This legislation demonstrates the need for leaders in Congress who have experience in the military and in Iraq, and who value the rule of law as we fight the War on Terror.
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t exclude lobbyists. The “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” means George Bush and the other Washington politicians can’t grant immunity to law breakers no matter how much they give to campaigns.
It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) issued a release today taunting Linda Stender, candidate for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, on the issue of Congress’ re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
….
Stender hit back this afternoon.
“It’s clear from this nonsensical attack that the national Republicans know they’re in jeopardy of losing this seat,” said Stender campaign spokesman Joshua Henne. “Linda Stender believes we can defend both our nation’s security, and the Constitution. The Bush Republicans sadly still haven’t learned its possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn’t compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush’s friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice.
This Friday, legislation was passed that will take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. The FISA bill strips Americans of these rights and protects telecommunications companies from being held accountable by the people.
I am standing up against my own party because I believe we can have sound legislation that defends our country and, at the same time, protects our Constitution. If we are to hold our government accountable, retroactive immunity is the wrong path to go down.
It’s time to support Democrats with democratic values and principles, Democrats who will work on behalf of the American people and protect their rights. When I’m elected to Congress, I will be that Democrat.
Today, Darius Shahinfar, candidate for the 21st Congressional District, called the compromise reached on amendment of the Federal Information Surveillance Act (FISA) a compromise of Constitutional principles.
“The critical problem of this compromise is that it contains a free pass for the Bush Administration’s and telecommunication companies’ past actions. The Administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps cannot be reviewed, and the process to review the telecommunications companies’ participation in the wiretapping program leads inevitably to immunity for those companies” Shahinfar said.
Darius’ remarks come at a time when the controversial piece of legislation would allow immunity to phone companies who currently face lawsuits for violating the constitutional rights of their members, according to plaintiff claims.
“By passing this piece of legislation, we are telling our government and our citizens that as long as the President tells you to do so, breaking the law is legal. No one, not even the President, is above our laws, especially when it comes to the issue of protecting our Constitutional rights.”
When asked further of his views about FISA, Shahinfar continued, “FISA was created 30 years ago, is applicable with today’s advanced technology and has been a vital tool in collecting intelligence for our nations’ security.It had not been an issue, until this administration decided to use it improperly and against its intended purpose. This will not make Americans any safer from threats at home or abroad; rather it will put us at the mercy of secret agreements between corporations and our government.”
If the Bush Administration had read the constitution the first time, we wouldn’t find ourselves having this debate. Granting amnesty to these companies would set a precedent that would allow others to arbitrarily ignore the constitution. No one should be above the law in America.
Growing up in Western New York, one of the first lessons I was taught was that each of us has to take responsibility for our actions. As a social studies teacher, I came to understand this principle in the broader context of our democracy. We are, first and foremost, a nation of laws. Each of us should be treated equally under the law, and no one should be given special treatment. The founding fathers designed the courts as the proper place to weigh one’s actions under the law, not the White House. I trust that the courts, which have ensured the rights and liberty of all Americans for over 200 years, are more than able to continue providing the wisdom and protections that keep us free.
NY-29: Eric Massa (you should really read the entire diary and Massa’s analysis)
At the heart of the debate is the truncation of the Fourth Amendment, which outlines the right of the people to be secure in their persons and belongings. That right, which many would consider a bedrock of basic liberties in the Nation, is altered to allow the Federal Government to conduct searches and seizures of personal property without a warrant from a court of law.
….
But the bigger problem here is the immunity that would be given if it is found that the government and cooperating officials acted without due justification. Under current law, those involved can be held accountable and the individual on whom the actions were perpetrated can seek redress before the government. This right to seek redress is another fundamental individual liberty that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain for all Americans. This current bill takes away the right of citizens to seek redress.
The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers’ privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people.
I am opposed to affording any immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have broken the law by their participation in handing over information or granting wire-taping access to the Bush Administration without first properly receiving permission through FISA Court.
I am hoping that before the current legislation makes its way to the President’s desk, members of the U.S. Senate will see that the protection of civil rights should precede any special treatment for any special interest. When the Patriot Act was first debated and wrongly passed, the telecommunications lobbying arm kept quiet and now they want to ensure that justice is silenced forever.
As the daughter of a cop, I have great respect for our Constitution and the pursuit of the truth. Any immunity that is granted before giving the American people the opportunity to even uncover a violation is a violation unto itself.
The Constitution also places no one above, below or immune from the law. The House Judiciary Committee was absolutely correct today to reject President Bush’s demand for blind and blanket immunity for large telecom companies who aided illegal spying. It should be noted that not all such companies heeded the call for unchecked Presidential power, and those who resisted should be commended. For the others, blind immunity for crimes, especially when not even yet fully documented, is an alien and disturbing idea to Americans.
“Finally, to those who imply that by opposing warrantless, illegal spying in America, Democrats somehow are aiding our enemies: I urge you to take an evening off, turn off that distracting talk radio and Fox News, and spend a quiet evening reading the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. You may learn something new, and wonderful.
This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies.
Has anyone in Washington these days ever heard of (let alone read) the U.S. Constitution– remember that document? We were guaranteed certain rights. It seems many Republican members of Congress lay awake at night, thinking what rights can we take away from our fellow Americans today.
Specifically my opponent J. Randy Forbes, VA (R) wanted to add language that would have ensured that nothing in the bill would be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, a state sponsor of terrorism or agents of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the language would have permitted the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of any person concerning an imminent attack on the United States, any U.S. person, including members of the Armed Forces, or an ally of the United States, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, members of the al-Queda Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or any terrorist or terrorist organization. This language failed to garner enough votes to be included in H.R. 3773.
The right-wing is operating in force in Congress and the typical corporate Republicrats are once again falling in line. We have a Democratic majority in the House and yet they seem to be as confused by the meaning of the Constitution as the Republicans. Apparently, since impeachment is off the table, so is the U.S. Constitution. When I look at this new bill I can’t help wondering if this is the new Democratic thinking, “If we make all illegal actions legal, then the President and Vice President have done nothing wrong. Ergo there is no need to consider impeachment because no laws were broken.”
“This “compromise” will not make Americans safer,” said Perriello, a national security consultant with experience in Afghanistan, Darfur and West Africa. “If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation.”
No one in this country should be above the law and saying Alberto Gonzales told me it was okay is hardly an excuse. I oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms who engaged in illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Frank Wolf has again sided with the President on this issue voting in favor of immunity for those who circumvented the FISA courts and our legal process.
Honestly, I don’t understand why at this point any member of Congress would think it was a good idea to give George Bush the power to grant immunity to anyone he wants around warrantless wiretapping – and to cover all tracks in the process. George Bush has proven, over and over again, that he cannot be trusted to uphold either the letter or the spirit of the laws that protect the people of the United States from the abuse of our government.
….
All I can say is that I’m sorry Congress failed on this one – and that I will honor the pledge I hope to take to uphold the Constitution.
WY-AL: Gary Trauner (also see here for some excellent choice quotes Gary dug up from our own Founding Fathers)
Wow. I am deeply saddened today by the news that the US House has voted to pass a bill amending the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which strikes at the very core of American democracy – our Constitutional Bill of Rights and the rule of law. It enables our federal government to intercept, without probable cause, all international communications of American citizens, and it provides retroactive immunity for companies that may have broken the law (if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?).
….
Wow! Is that what it’s come to? Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we “need” to do it? Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington DC or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you – where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:
I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit.
I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms. If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?.
We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works.
I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice.
If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause. Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear.
….
Finally, the truth is that Congress last year passed a temporary extension of the Protect America Act that was vetoed by the President and voted against by the Republican leadership and certain Democrats. They said they would not accept a bill that does not include giving a free pass to companies that might have broken the law! Incredible. It deserve saying one more time – these so-called leaders are telling us the Protect America Act was so important, without it America is not protected from terrorists; however, they were willing to block this incredibly important Act, and leave America unprotected, unless large corporations were let off the hook for knowingly breaking the law. Because unlike you and me, who in the event of potential wrongdoing only get off the hook by presenting our case in a court of law, they think large corporations should be held to a different standard – no accountability.
The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
The Church Committee’s investigations resulted in the creation of a permanent Senate Committee on Intelligence, and the passage of substantial legislation, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.
Church’s work is now being shredded by the Bush Administration.
FISA established a legal framework for electronic eavesdropping at home, including a special FISA court. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect intelligence involving communications with “agents of foreign powers.”
The Bush Administration exploited this narrow exception in the passage of the Patriot Act that allows use of FISA to obtain personal records from many sources including libraries and internet service providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism.
Even worse, the Bush Administration now uses FISA to get around the constitutional requirement of seeking a warrant before it eavesdrops on communications by the NSA.
….
When I am elected to the Senate, I will demand an end to the abuse of FISA and a return to the checks and balances espoused by Frank Church and the Church Committee.
As a former Congressman, Frank Church staff member, and U.S. Army intelligence office, I will help lead the way back from the civil liberty abuses of this administration.
The secret warrantless wiretapping program was flat out wrong. The Bush administration went too far when it may not have even been necessary. Almost 99 percent of wiretapping applications were approved when they were submitted to judges. We must do all we can to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary tools to protect our homeland but individual privacy and civil liberties must be protected because those are the freedoms we fight for. That is America. And I think we should be focused finding terrorists and not protecting corporate CEOs. I’m sure there was pressure from the Bush administration and that isn’t an enviable position to be in for a company but what is wrong is wrong and there must be accountability. When mistakes were made in my companies, I took responsibility, took action and solved the problems.
I was encouraged by news a few months ago that both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed new FISA bills with added privacy protections. Now Mitch McConnell and his Republican leadership in Washington need to work with Senate and House Democrats to finalize legislation that protects the safety, and freedoms, of all Americans. I hear this issue will be brought up again in the Senate sometime during the summer.
ME-Sen: Tom Allen (who just voted against it in the House)
As I have stated before, neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable. This ‘compromise’ fails to hold either the Bush administration or the telecommunications companies to the same standards that apply to other Americans.
The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.
Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.
That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.
Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveillance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.
The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance.
The bill will force federal district courts to immediately dismiss any cases against telecommunications companies that participated in illegal surveillance. This is unacceptable. The Constitution of the United States was violated. Over several years telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of innocent Americans to the federal government without proper oversight and without a warrant.
The Bush Administration disregarded the Fourth Amendment when it authorized this surveillance and now Congress may provide the Administration and these companies a free pass. This is a mistake. The Senate is set to vote on the FISA bill this week. For the sake of our constitution and the foundation of our democracy, I urge all Senators to unite in opposition to this bill.
If I’m elected to the Senate, I will not hesitate to fight to protect our civil liberties and the laws this nation was founded upon.
I have spoken out against immunity for telecommunications companies throughout this campaign. Last February, I urged my supporters to sign a petition to pressure my opponent, Republican Senator Gordon Smith, to vote against the FISA bill that granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Unfortunately, Gordon Smith voted in favor of granting retroactive immunity. I expect him to do the same when the Senate votes on this issue in the coming days. For years, the Bush Administration has been undermining the balance of powers. Checks and balances must be restored and a vote against the immunity bill would be a critical starting point.
On Christmas morning 2004, outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, my buddies and I drove to our base camp to use the computers. We wanted to be with our kids when they woke up that Christmas. To get there we drove through a near ambush–anytime we drove on the Jalalabad Road, it was risky, and we had an incident on our way.
That Christmas morning, I suspect the government listened to our conversations. They occurred between two countries; Afghanistan and the US. They probably didn’t realize the difference in tone in my voice as I spoke to my wife and children that morning as my heart raced still from our encounter on the road. My wife did.
I fought to defend our country and our constitution in Afghanistan. I fought for the right to privacy for every Texan. Mr. Cornyn must now stand up for the privacy of every Texan and American too. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they violated the law.
Americans understand the need for safety and the need for intelligence gathering. What they will not accept is an abuse of power, of crossing the line on American’s privacy.
I would join Sen. Dodd in opposition to any retroactive provisions that allow a “get out of jail card” for violating the Constitution. If Mr. Cornyn had ever had the opportunity to have his Christmas conversation listened to by the government, on a day that he feared for his life in a convoy on Jalalabad Road, he would do the same.
Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue. Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.
House
AZ-03: Bob Lord (nobody asked him in his diary two days ago?)
FL-18: Annette Taddeo
FL-21: Raul Martinez
FL-24: Suzanne Kosmas
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
MD-01: Frank Kratovil
MN-02: Steve Sarvi
NE-02: Jim Esch
NM-02: Harry Teague
NM-03: Ben Ray Lujan (who even diaried here last week, but nobody asked him about FISA!)
NV-02: Jill Derby
NV-03: Dina Titus
OH-15: Mary Jo Kilroy
OH-16: John Boccieri
TX-07: Michael Skelly
WV-02: Anne Barth
Senate
KS-Sen: Jim Slattery
MN-Sen: Al Franken (though he did write a satire piece about wiretapping)
MS-Sen: Ronnie Musgrove
NE-Sen: Scott Kleeb
And then there’s even some Democratic challengers who have come out in FAVOR of this FISA bill.
For his part, Adler released a statement today, underscoring his own support for reupping FISA “so that our intelligence community has the tools needed to keep America safe in a dangerous world. We must also protect the freedoms for which our troops have made so many courageous sacrifices.”
She was asked if she would have voted for, or against, the FISA bill this week which would have granted retroactive immunity to Telcos for felony violations of the current FISA law.
Ms. Hagan explained that she was against Telcos spying on Americans, but that she would have voted FOR the bill, and granted them immunity, but that future law breaking would not be tolerated.
And of course, Mark Udall running for the Senate in Colorado voted for this bill last week. And perception on the blogs seems to be that Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen would’ve supported this bill had they been in the Senate, so I’m not exactly holding my breath to hear statements from them against telecom immunity.
Now, some of the candidates above still have a contested primary to go, like in CO-02, where all three of them came out against it, even as the person they’re trying to replace, Mark Udall, voted for it. There’s other districts, like in AZ-01 and NY-21, where only that candidate has released a statement on FISA, and others haven’t seemed to. (I’m looking at you, Ann Kirkpatrick.) If you guys can find statements by them, please let me know in the comments.
The race for Kentucky’s First Congressional District’s House seat is definately heating up with the weather. As we approach the dog days of summer, the Ryan for Kentucky campaign is definately gaining steam. Today, we have several pieces of new news to pass on to our fellow Democrats. Heather Ryan is hitting her stride, and is ready to fight to expand our Congressional majorities!!
The first piece of news we have is this letter to the editor sent by Heather to Louisville’s Courier Journal in response to their article about “Exxon Eddie’s” horse initiative:
To the Editor:
As the Democratic candidate for Kentucky ‘s First Congressional District, I have followed with interest Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield’s (KY-01) performance presiding over a dog-and-pony show before a House Energy Subcommittee. Mr. Whitfield’s plan to add a layer of federal bureaucracy to regulate the horse racing industry is unnecessary in light of the industry’s ability and willingness to self-regulate their business practices. Congressman Whitfield is obviously exploiting the recent death of Kentucky Derby runner-up Eight Belles to make political points during an election season. At a time of skyrocketing energy prices, when oil companies like Exxon-Mobil boast record profits, doesn’t seven-term Congressman Whitfield realize that the House Energy and Commerce committee’s Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee should be dealing with more pressing issues?
In much more important news, due to inquiries by many potential constituents, including myself Heather has decided to speak on the FISA compromise the Senate will vote on later this week. From the email sent to me by Heather:
Later this week, the Senate will be considering passage of the compromise on the FISA Bill. Since many voters in the First Congressional District of Kentucky have contacted me wondering what my stance on this legislation is, I felt compelled to speak on this issue.
While I was in Washington on that terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001 when planes crashed into the World Trade Center and in Western Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, I can understand the passion that has fueled this bill. Having said that, I must urge the Senate to reject this FISA compromise as proposed and passed by the House of Representatives with H.R. 6304.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
Indeed. I don’t think I could have put it better myself. Heather has shown with this response that she, simply put just gets it. None of us should forget the incompetence of the Bush Administration leading up to 9-11, and how it contributed to that tragedy. We should remember too, that they have now attempted to politicize the Justice Department to make us forget that incompetence.
The truth of the matter is that this law is unneccesary. Toying with the Constitution is a dangerous precedent for anyone to set, especially at the behest of the most incompetent administration in modern times. Heather is spot on in her analysis of the Republicans, including Exxon Eddie, lecturing us on the size of the Federal Government while voting to broadly expanding the powers of that entity.
As usual, Exxon Eddie has shown no vision or leadership on this issue. Of course we all know that Exxon Eddie is
It is refreshing to see a candidate that isn’t afraid to speak the truth, especially on such an important issue as the Constitution. It is also refreshing to see a candidate that isn’t afraid to break from her party’s leadership when she feels they are wrong. We need more candidates like that in the Congress. As much as we complain about what we feel is capitulation by our party’s leadership, we simply must fight for newer and better Democrats like Heather Ryan.
In more light-hearted news, Ryan for Kentucky today unveiled it’s new “Bag Eddie” series, designed to show some of the ridiculousness of Exxon Ed Whitfield and his fellow Kentucky Republican lackeys. Catch the first installment here:
Mitch McConnell makes an appearance in this one:
Now, you know what to do. We need Democrats in the Congress who share our ideals and aren’t afraid to fight for them. We need Democrats who don’t buy into the propoganda put forth by the Bush Administration. Why not support a Democrat who clearly gets it??:
Boy, soliciting contributions from, and voting for the special interests must be really tiring work. Being Mitch McConnell’s favorite lackey in the Kentucky Republican Party machine must be too. Exxon Eddie has been a busy man, and unfortunately it is catching up with him. He is looking pretty tired……
When Veterans needed him to stand up for them on the benefits they had earned and were promised:
Whitfield voted against a $53 Million boost for Veteran’s Health care and benefits. The vote was against an amendment to the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs funding bill to add $53 million for veterans health care and other benefits, offset by a 9% cut to BRAC. The amendment would add $8 million for combat-related trauma care, $6 million for poly-trauma centers to support wounded troops once they return to their homes, $9 million for VA medical and prosthetic research and $7 million for 100 additional staff who process claims for compensation and pension benefits. Finally, the amendment would provide $23 million to help approximately 4,100 souses of service members with children whose spouse died during the War on Terrorism between September 11, 2001 and November 30, 2004 by making them eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. The amendment failed 213-214 – Whitfield was the deciding vote which denied these benefits to injured veterans. (Leadership Document, “Medical Quality Democratic Amendment Final.”)
[HR 2528, Vote #224, 5/26/05; Failed 213-214; R 19-210; D 193-4; I 1-0]
Exxon Ed Whitfield was asleep at the wheel:
While others fought for Ethics in Goverment:
Whitfield voted to Weaken House Ethics Rules. The new rules would allow lobbyists to cater meals to members’ offices and let charities pay for lawmakers to travel and stay at golf resorts and other locales. The measure would allow outside interests to pay for “perishable food or refreshments offered to members of an office.” For example, a lobbying firm representing pharmaceutical interests sent in dinner for House speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-IL) staff while they were working late on a prescription drug bill. The weaker rules passed, 221-203. Whitfield has since traveled abroad at the expense of lobbyists who sit on the boards of non-profit organizations.
[HRS 5, Vote #6, 1/4/2005; Passed 220-195; R 220-0; D 0-194; D 0-1].
Exxon Eddie was Asleep at the Wheel:
When Americans needed a break from Price Gouging:
Whitfield Opposed Cracking Down on Price Gouging and Lowering Gas Prices. The vote was against a measure to provide the Federal Trade Commission with new authority to investigate and prosecute those who engage in predatory pricing, from oil companies on down to gas stations, with the emphasis on those who profit the most. This includes price gouging of gasoline and natural gas, home heating oil and propane. The measure increased funding for the low-income home energy assistance program through fines from price-gouging companies and created a strategic refinery reserve with capacity equal to 5% of the total United States demand for gasoline, home heating oi8l and other refined petroleum products.
]HR 3893, Vote #517, 10/7/2005; Failed 199-222; R 2-222; D 196-0; I 1-0].
Exxon Eddie was asleep at the wheel:
Finally, when Kentucky’s Coal Miners needed a friend to fight for safer working conditions for them:
Whitfield Voted to Put Coal Miners at Greater Health Risk
[HR 2660, Vote #349, 7/10/2003; Failed 216-216; R207-19; D 9-195; I 0-1]
The vote would allow for new rules allowing four times the amount of coal dust previously legal in underground mines. Under the proposal, operators could violate a standard spelled out in the 1969 federal mine safety law that specifically says respirators are not to be used as a substitute for otherwise lowering the level of dust in mines. An effort to block the new fule failed 210-212.
You guessed it, Exxon Ed Whitfield was asleep at the wheel:
All these years of representing the special interests and Corporate America over the interests of the average working American have taken a toll on Exxon Ed Whitfield. He needs rest, and where better to get it than beautiful, sunny Florida where he lives?? Lets send him there to catch up on his beauty sleep.
