Congress

The Constitution Project is holding a panel "Congress vs. the President: The Scope and Limits of Congressional Oversight Powers" on July 16th. Details and RSVP here.

By David Swanson

The book I just read is in the running, in my estimation, for second-best text on how to undo the imperial presidency. (Can't be first, of course.) It's called "Madison's Nightmare: How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy," by Peter M. Shane, and it's much more about what the problem is than how to solve it, but the two things are not really separable, and the analysis of the problem here is invaluable.

By David Swanson

There's a story deeply buried here. Set aside for a moment dishonest ads being run by Republicans against Congressman Tom Perriello of Virginia's Fifth District attacking his Yes vote on a climate bill. Set aside the fact that the climate bill will actually increase pollution. The story may involve Perriello's vote for this controversial bill, but it certainly involves his recent vote for the war supplemental / IMF bankster bailout bill -- deeply unpopular here, and Perriello claimed to oppose the IMF money while voting for it. (There is not a shadow of a doubt that had the bill failed, the war and the IMF would have been separated, and Perriello could have still voted to kill people without voting to impoverish people.)

Young women and girls account for one-eighth of the world's population. And even though many are the primary caregivers and breadwinners in their household -- most still do not enjoy even basic human rights.

This situation is especially acute in Afghanistan, where despite efforts by the U.S. government, the United Nations, and others to improve the lives of women and girls, many still lack access to basic health care and schools. Many face violence and intimidation, daily. And Afghanistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

You can ensure these basic rights for the women of Afghanistan by asking your senator to support The Afghan Women Empowerment Act introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

By Michael D Ostrolenk

We now have 245 co-sponsors for h.r. 1207 'Audit the Fed' bill in the House . We have 4 co-sponsors now including Sen. Mike Crapo (ID)) for S. 604. in the Senate. I want to thank The National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW), The Harbour League , and Downsize DC for their efforts in support of Federal Reserve transparency. If your organization is working in support of transparency in the federal reserve system in general and the legislation in particular, please let me know.

Some of our focus is now turning to the Senate. I have including a list below of the Senate banking committee members. Please activate your grassroots, your partners, and your staff as the case may be and have them encourage all members of the Senate but especially the banking committee members to cosponsor S. 604. I have also included a few interesting links below to Congressional hearings on the fed which provide even more reasons to pass Audit the Fed.

The Health Care Industry vs. Health Reform
By Wendell Potter | Center for Media and Democracy

I'm the former insurance industry insider now speaking out about how big for-profit insurers have hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street investors, and how the industry is using its massive wealth and influence to determine what is (and is not) included in the health care reform legislation members of Congress are now writing.

Although by most measures I had a great career in the insurance industry (four years at Humana and nearly 15 at CIGNA), in recent years I had grown increasingly uncomfortable serving as one of the industry's top PR executives. In addition to my responsibilities at CIGNA, which included serving as the company's chief spokesman to the media on all corporate and financial matters, I also served on a lot of trade association committees and industry-financed coalitions, many of which were essentially front groups for insurers. So I was in a unique position to see not only how Wall Street analysts and investors influence decisions insurance company executives make but also how the industry has carried out behind-the-scenes PR and lobbying campaigns to kill or weaken any health care reform efforts that threatened insurers' profitability.

I also have seen how the industry's practices -- especially those of the for-profit insurers that are under constant pressure from Wall Street to meet their profit expectations -- have contributed to the tragedy of nearly 50 million people being uninsured as well as to the growing number of Americans who, because insurers now require them to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in -- are underinsured. An estimated 25 million of us now fall into that category.

What I saw happening over the past few years was a steady movement away from the concept of insurance and toward "individual responsibility," a term used a lot by insurers and their ideological allies. This is playing out as a continuous shifting of the financial burden of health care costs away from insurers and employers and onto the backs of individuals. As a result, more and more sick people are not going to the doctor or picking up their prescriptions because of costs. If they are unfortunate enough to become seriously ill or injured, many people enrolled in these plans find themselves on the hook for such high medical bills that they are losing their homes to foreclosure or being forced into bankruptcy. Read more.

Obama issues signing statement on $106B war bill
By Michael O'Brien | The Hill

President Obama signed the $106 billion war-spending bill into law Friday, but not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in the legislation.

Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.

President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative. Read more.

Meet With Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd Today at Eco-Fest, Today, 1-6 PM. Details & Map

By David Swanson

These are the top 10 reasons it makes sense that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is waiting for a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Department of Justice prior to impeaching federal judge and former torture and war facilitator Jay Bybee.

10. It could turn out that writing memos pretending to legalize torture was the ethical thing to do, or at least that doing so in the future is a recommendation of Obama's task force on interrogations.

9. Claiming to give presidents the power to legally launch aggressive wars might turn out to be professional if not responsible. It's just not Congress's place to say.

8. If you impeached Bybee you'd have to subpoena him. If you subpoenaed him and didn't have the nerve to send the Capitol Police after him, you'd have to ask the Justice Department to go get him, and that might interfere with editing the OPR report to accommodate Bybee's wishes.

Proposal Offers Specifics On Preventive Detention
by Ari Shapiro | NPR

Ever since President Obama proposed holding terrorism detainees without trial, the debate over preventive detention has been growing. Now, NPR has the first look at a detailed legislative proposal to hold detainees indefinitely. The document comes from two experts outside of government, and it is already being discussed in the Obama administration.

In a speech last month at the National Archives, President Obama opened the door to the possibility that some terrorism detainees will neither be tried nor released.

"If and when we determine the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war," he said, "we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight."

Attorney General Eric Holder was not much more specific last week when he testified before a Senate committee that a preventive detention program "would be some kind of review with regard to the initial determination [that the detainee should be held], and then a periodic review with regard to whether or not that person should continue to be detained."

Although the controversy has been hazy until now, it is about to come into sharp focus. Read more.

Dear Mr. Swanson,

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R.984, the State Secret Protection Act. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts on this important issue.

The State Secret Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) on February 11, 2009, would narrow the scope of the state secrets privilege. Traditionally, the state secrets privilege has been used to exclude pieces of evidence from trials in situations where the government has claimed that there is a risk to national security. Under the previous administration, this was broadened to block entire lawsuits against the government and withhold information about extraordinary rendition, warrantless domestic wiretapping, and torture. The State Secret Protection Act would give the courts the ability to review government claims of state secret privilege and determine whether there is a security risk in disclosing information or allowing a case to go forward.

Here's the roll call. But the military has to video its interrogations, and the School of the Assassins has to say who attends it ... in the future only of course. And that is if any of this survives the Senate. Tom Andrews says White House and "leadership" pressured hard to block the requirement to have a plan to ever leave Afghanistan. another Andrews, the congressman, lied to his constituents that he would vote yes.

Fattah's fighting words fall flat
Holding politicians accountable is the first step in battling Capitol Hill hypocrisy
Jimmy Tobias | Daily Pennsylvanian

Two years ago, our congressional representative Chaka Fattah (D) made an important promise - one that he has completely and shamelessly betrayed.

In 2007, in response to a growing number of American citizens frustrated by the United States' open-ended military presence in Iraq, Fattah and a small cadre of congressmen wrote a letter to then-President Bush. It stated that they would "only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before [Bush leaves] office."

Their purported goal was to limit the increasingly concentrated power of Washington bureaucrats, policy-makers and politicians who had become - and continue to be - the arbiters of life and death for millions of people living in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One would assume that this principled anti-war sentiment might continue to hold firm - even with a Democrat in the White House. But a little over a week ago, in an act of astonishing hypocrisy, Fattah went back on his pledge and voted for an emergency war supplemental bill that commits $79.9 billion to refuel both of our wars without any commitment to troop withdrawal. This act reveals his earlier pledge as nothing more than a cynical political stunt.

Why did Fattah do it? It's shameful. Our congressman snapped like a dry bone when Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other members of President Barack Obama's Beltway war council (Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, among others) leaned on him. Read more.

Ron Paul: International Bailout Brings Us Closer to Economic Collapse International Bailout Brings Us Closer to Economic Collapse
By Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) | InfoWars | Submitted by Phil Restino | Central Florida Veterans For Peace

Last week Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill. In an affront to all those who thought they voted for a peace candidate, the current president will be sending another $106 billion we don’t have to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, without a hint of a plan to bring our troops home.

Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune. I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.

From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout! Read more.

Ask House members to vote Yes: 202-224-3121.