Saturday, March 08, 2008

USDA Says Who Ate Bad Meat Is None Of Our Business

  This is just to stupid to believe.

Published on Saturday, March 8, 2008 by

by Martha Rosenberg

At least 10,000 food distributors sold recalled meat from the shuttered Hallmark slaughterhouse in Chino, CA including ConAgra, General Foods, Nestle and H.J. Heinz and it could still be on store shelves.

But Richard Raymond, USDA undersecretary for food safety, told an incredulous House Appropriation’s agriculture panel this week the information is “proprietary” and would not be released.

Naming names could drive customers away and just “confuse” people say trade groups like the American Meat Institute, Food Marketing Institute and Grocery Manufacturers Association.

The Bush Administration also opposes publicizing retailers’ names in meat recalls.

But an appeal to protectionism was not what the panel wanted to hear.

“This is a very, very critically important issue,” said Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) demanding a list of implicated distributors by next week. “If we have stores that are selling bad products, we should know about it.”

This is not the first time shield laws have protected industry profits at the price of public health during mad cow scares.

Shield laws protected the identities of Texas and Alabama ranches that produced mad cows in 2004 and 2006 and the identities of 11 restaurants in nine California counties that served meat from a confirmed mad cow in late 2003.

That’s why former state Sen. Jackie Speier backed a California law in 2006 which compelled distributors of recalled food products to disclose where those products went.

This week a 120 page list of over 400 restaurants and food services that bought Hallmark/Westland meat including Costco, Jack in the Box and Taco Bell appears on the California Department of Public Health web site. Officials say the list is growing.

The Department of Agriculture and Big Food did not have an easy time in the Senate last week either.

Even as Gary Rodkin, CEO of ConAgra Foods apologized for last year’s pot pie recall in a House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee hearing–”I personally will ensure that we will continuously challenge and improve our food safety programs, and make certain that food safety is the centerpiece of our corporate culture,”–the news broke that ConAgra was implicated in this year’s recall.

And in Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearings last week, chairman Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) wanted to know why, with five inspectors assigned to the Hallmark slaughterhouse, the videotaped abuse that led to the recall had to be uncovered by a charity.

“Why don’t you have a system that uncovers this inhumane treatment of animals?” Senator Kohl asked Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer who was making his first appearance on Capitol Hill since assuming the post days before the meat scandal broke.

In January, an undercover video showing the mistreatment of “downer” cows shot at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse which supplied the National School Lunch Program led to the biggest meat recall in US history.

Senators and consumer and animal welfare groups are calling for a complete downer ban. Downers are usually dairy cows barely able to stand due to calcium depletion from being milked intensively and are worth as little as $84 per head.

But Schafer and the American Meat Institute think such a ban is “unfair to owners.”

Many downers are just fine when they arrive at the slaughterhouse, they say, but somehow get “injured” after inspection. They want to keep USDA rules that currently allow slaughterhouse officials to call a veterinarian back if a cow falls down after passing inspection so it can still be slaughtered.

But Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said at the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearings such a rule is “the fox guarding the hen house.”

Especially because Rafael Sanchez Herrera, 34, of Chino, one of two Hallmark workers charged in the abuse, says he was taught the videotaped techniques to get downed cows to stand up and pass inspection by former pen manager, Daniel Ugarte Navarro, 49, of Pomona, who is also charged in the case but free on bail.

Sanchez Herrera says he asked his former supervisor, “How can you treat a poor animal that way?” and Ugarte Navarro replied that, “I didn’t know anything and I was nobody.”

The press is also skeptical of the “previously healthy downer” loophole.

“You’re saying that those [downers] never would have passed inspection anyway,” Miriam Falco of CNN Medical News said to Ken Peterson, assistant administrator of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service which enforces the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, at a press briefing in February. “But we see video of them going into the facility. So at what point does your inspection pick up on this?”

Cynics might answer: when a charity like the Humane Society of the United States catches it.

Martha Rosenberg is a cartoonist for the Evanston Roundtable in Evanston, Illinois.

Bill Foster Wins Hastert's Seat

  Way to go Mr. Foster. Another Republican hold bites the dust as is getting to be pretty common as of late. The GOP sham didn't work out this time around as their boy,Jim Oberweis, lost an expensive and very negative battle for this seat in the special election. This marks Oberweis's fourth election loss in six years.

  Something here that is a little bit funny though. The Chicago Tribune said that this loss was a stunning upset. A-stunning-upset-to-who? Everyone with an I.Q. over 3 knew that there was no way that the Republican bot of the moment was going to get this one, no matter how much money the GOP threw in his direction.

The win gives Democrats another House seat until at least the end of the year. It also could serve as an omen for November, when two other Illinois congressional seats are up for grabs following Republican retirements and Sen. Barack Obama could bring out a huge turnout if he's the Democratic presidential nominee.

Foster won with 52 percent to Oberweis' 48 percent with nearly all of the unofficial vote counted late Saturday

Barack Obama: What Would He Do As President Of The United States?

  All that we seem to hear is that Senator Obama Doesn't speak on the issues that face America or that he has no plans if he makes it into the White House. So, being the good citizen that I try to be, I am listing, a little at a time, Senator Obama's plans as the President of the United States. In order to be fair and balanced with this, I will post Senator Clinton's ideas as well as Senator McCain's, if I can find any.

  These ideals come directly from Senator Obama's website in PDF, so you'll have to download from HERE in order to have your very own copy. Or, you can just read it here in segments.

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.  I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists – and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the
American people when I am president.”
-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

A Leader for Reform
Obama reached across the aisle and challenged leaders of both parties to pass historic ethics reforms both in Washington and Springfield, IL.  Unlike other candidates, he refuses to accept campaign contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists.

Close the Revolving Door
Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops.  Obama’s appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests.

Increase Transparency
Obama will increase transparency so that ordinary Americans can understand their government and trust that their money is well spent.
End Wasteful No-Bid Contracts
Obama will clean up government contracting and end the abuse of no-bid contracts.
Lobbyists Write National Policies
For example, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions
The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the ‘state secrets’ privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Wasteful Spending is Out of Control
The current administration has abused its power by handing out contracts without competition to its politically connected friends and supporters.  These abuses cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

  By now you are asking, so what will he do? We get started on that the next time around.

Stephen Colbert's Take On FISA

  Another one of these just for the hell of it posts. I ran across this while just browsing around this morning and thought it was funny. Maybe you will also.

Stephen Colbert:

At this very moment, America is in danger. Who's to blame? As usual, the Democrats. The members of "Donk-qaeda" have used their House majority to block the renewal of the Protect America Act which, as the name clearly states, empowers the NSA to tap your phones without a warrant. By not passing the Protect America Act, the Demon-crats are placing, in grave danger, the safety of millions of innocent American dollars.

No Inhaled Insulin From Lilly

  It really sucks to be a type-1 diabetic in this world. Every time a company comes up with a newer way to take our insulin by means other than injection, the idea gets tossed aside for some reason or another.

    Eli Lilly has decided that there is not enough commercial potential in the manufacture of inhaled insulin to continue pursuing the treatment option. I think that means that the corporate big-boys have decided that they can't make enough money off of the inhaled product, so let's drop it.

Indianapolis-based Lilly said its decision was not based on safety concerns, "but rather was a result of increasing uncertainties in the regulatory environment, and a thorough evaluation of the evolving commercial and clinical potential of the product compared to existing medical therapies."

I guess that selling syringes, insulin in vials, and pumps are a more profitable course for the company. I was looking forward to being able to use this type of insulin. Oh well! I hope that Lilly's competitors are working on this.

Technorati Tags: , ,

More On The McCain Lobbyist Scandal

  hell, it's been snowing out just about all day so I've had nothing better to do than to browse the net. Though I have been basically just screwing around today, I ran across this concerning the McCain/lobbyist scandal. You know the one I'm talking about.

  Cross-posted from TruthOut

The Other Side of the McCain Lobbyist Scandal
    By Jerold M. Starr
    The Nation

    Tuesday 04 March 2008

    I don't know whether Senator John McCain had sex with lobbyist Vickie Iseman, but I do know, first hand, that he broke the rules while doing the bidding of media mogul Lowell "Bud" Paxson, a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. McCain's staff lied it about it then and they are inventing new lies even now.

    I was the leader of the campaign opposing the transfer of Pittsburgh's second public television station (Channel 16), along with $17.5 million, to a conservative televangelist ministry so that Paxson could expand his network into the Pittsburgh market. In fact, I wrote a well-reviewed book in 2000 about the entire case, Air Wars: The Fight to Reclaim Public Broadcasting.

    Since this man could well be the next President of the United States, his character should be of concern to all people of this country.

    In 1994, local media revealed that Pittsburgh's public station WQED had piled up millions of dollars of debt due to obvious malfeasance and, according to our informants, possible embezzlement. By 1996, new CEO George Miles's solution to this problem was to commercialize and sell off Channel 16. Along with activist Linda Wambaugh, I organized the Save Pittsburgh Public Television campaign to advocate a solution that would have both addressed the debt and saved the station.

    In July 1996, the FCC denied WQED's petition on the grounds that a noncommercial license had never been removed from a community without being replaced by another. Around April 1997, WQED proposed "Plan B"-a swap with Cornerstone Broadcasting, bankrolled by Paxson Communications, with Cornerstone taking over our public station and Paxson taking over Cornerstone's commercial frequency.

    As reported originally in the New York Times, McCain wrote two letters late in 1999 to each of the five FCC commissioners demanding that they advise him by December 15 whether they had voted for or against Paxson's petition. McCain continues to insist that his letter's disclaimer that he was not calling for a particular outcome exonerates him of charges of interference. However, Steve Labaton of the New York Times plowed through 2,000 pages of McCain office correspondence and found that almost all of his letters included this "boilerplate" disclaimer. Moreover, in "the vast majority of these regulatory cases where McCain himself sent the letter, the interested parties had contributed to his presidential campaigns."

    As our attorney, Georgetown's Angela Campbell, advised ABC News: "The timing of the letters was clearly in Paxson's interest." Paxson's contract with all parties was due to expire December 31 and there were clear indications that Cornerstone would withdraw from the deal. The Commission still was undecided and had the option to refer the case for public hearing so that community sentiment could be measured. Short of outright denial, this was our wish. Miles acknowledged to the press at the time that had this happened, the deal would have been "dead in the water."

    Back then, after extensive interviews with DC lobbyists and FCC staff, the Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post and others concluded that McCain's letters were "highly unusual," "crossed a line" and "were widely interpreted to favor the complicated transfers."

    At the time, McCain's staff said to the press that his intervention was appropriate because "there was no formal opposition." Our opposition had been formal for years. Our board of directors included such community leaders as the president of the Pittsburgh City Council, a monsignor in the Pittsburgh Catholic Archdiocese and a state legislator (who sat on WQED's board but could not abide the sellout). Our supporters included scores of unions with up to 150,000 members, more than forty public interest groups, hundreds of educators, clergy and other professionals and, thanks to Working Assets, up to 40,000 letters urging the FCC to deny the transfer of Pittsburgh's public station to Cornerstone.

    The major reason the case took so long is the well-documented presentation by our campaign that Cornerstone was not qualified to run our educational broadcasting station. In a highly unusual move in March 1998, Barbara Kreisman, a high-ranking FCC official, wrote to Cornerstone to advise that it amend their application to demonstrate eligibility. Kreisman called Cornerstone's five-member board "self perpetuating" and "not...broadly representative of the Pittsburgh community."

    Kreisman noted further that Cornerstone's "goal still appears to be primarily religious" and "it's not clear to what extent" Cornerstone would pursue its claimed educational purposes. Still another problem was that, given all the commercials on Cornerstone (some programs being little more than infomercials), the FCC needed to know what steps the station "will take to comply with the Commission's rules regarding advertising and fund-raising on noncommercial educational stations."

    (One show peddled screensavers with messages such as "Somewhere a homo teacher is molesting a child." Since Cornerstone leaders were active followers of Pat Robertson, gays were not the only groups who got hammered on the air. So did the United Nations, teachers unions, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Buddhists and Unitarians, among others.)

    Cornerstone's response to the FCC's concerns was to add two associates to their five-member board and to submit a reformatted schedule with the same programs, even those in which commercials were integral to their content. Cornerstone then accused the FCC of religious bias and refused to make any more changes.

    In January 1999, the FCC invited all attorneys to a meeting. When our attorney asked the FCC's Joyce Bernstein whether the meeting was for "negotiation," Bernstein replied, "No, there is a standard for reserved licenses." The FCC then called to advise that Cornerstone refused to attend and the meeting canceled.

    Now McCain's camp has issued a 1,500-page document of "facts" the recent New York Times exposé did not include, such as that "No representative of Paxson or Alcade and Fay asked McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding." However, within days, Paxson himself advised the Washington Post that both Iseman and he had met with McCain about the matter.

    At the time, according to well-documented reports, Paxson's family, company and law firm were contributing tens of thousands of dollars to McCain's campaign while McCain flew around on Paxson's private jet to rallies and to fundraisers on Paxson's yacht.

    Eight months later, the FCC did, indeed, determine that McCain had broken the rules. First, the comment period was over so the case was bound by ex parte rules-no outside attempts to influence the commissioners. Commissioner Tristani recently explained, "It's like going to a court and saying, 'Tell us before it is final how you voted.'" At the time, Chair Kennard wrote to McCain that such inquiries could have "substantive impacts on the Commission's deliberation" and "the due process rights of the parties."

    As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain had control of the FCC's budget. To a colleague of mine at a meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters, Paxson boasted he had the commission "in his pocket." One commissioner, Democrat Susan Ness, had her application for another term at the FCC on McCain's desk. Ness broke ranks with her Democratic colleagues to approve the transfer, and then switched back to warn Cornerstone the FCC would be watching to see that they conformed to the rules governing non-commercial educational stations.

    Apparently, wishing to recast McCain as peacemaker rather than influence peddler, his campaign has resorted to more lies, claiming his staff "met with public broadcasting activists from the Pittsburgh area about the transfer" and we "expressed frustration that the proceeding had been before the FCC for over two years." Allegedly, we asked McCain's staff "to contact the FCC regarding this proceeding." We had no idea of McCain's sudden and urgent interest in our local matter until the FCC advised that the commissioners already had voted 3-2 to approve the transfer, at which time McCain's letters were dropped on us.

    In the end, Cornerstone miraculously withdrew, stating it could not risk compromising its religious ministry. Subsequently, Republicans in Congress moved a bill stripping educational programming as a requirement for holding an educational license. It actually passed the House, but stalled in the Senate.

    As I said, McCain's private life is not my concern. But I care deeply, as a veteran of Pittsburgh's struggle to save public television, that he sought to dictate the solution to our community dispute on behalf of some Florida-based media mogul.

Friday, March 07, 2008

John McCain: Those Things We Say

I am a Republican. I'm loyal to the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. And I believe that my party, in some ways, has strayed from those principles, particularly on the issue of fiscal discipline.  Here

  McCain is most certainly not lying in this quote, on either count. But, it is the loyalty to his party part that I wish to point out at this time. Keep that part of his quote in mind and remember that he will always go by the Republican playbook no matter how much the MSM tries to tell you that he is a " maverick " or a " straight talker ". He is neither.

  Remember the words of Chairman Mao: 'It's always darkest before it's totally black.'.   Here

  Right John-Boy! Your boss George Bush has been the darkest for the past 7 years and you will turn this country into the black if your ass is allowed into the White House.

Thank God for our form of government. The media won't let there be any cover-up. Here

Laugh My Fucking Ass Off! The MSM has been covering for Bush and they are covering for McCain. Once that fabled " maverick " and " straight talk " crap is whittled down to the true John McCain, he is nothing.

do we really want this in 2008?

mccain_bush 2


Technorati Tags: , ,

Senator McCain Leads In Crossover Votes When Matched Up Against Senator Obama

  This is just another one of those bad things about the Democrat's supporters. I think that these poll results, if accurate, tell us that the Democrats are no less racist than the Republicans are.

...about 14 percent of Democrats say they would vote for Mr. McCain today instead of Mr. Obama, but just 8 percent of Republicans say they would vote for the Illinois Democrat, according to a Pew Research Center survey on Feb. 28.

Additionally, 20 percent of white Democratic voters say they would defect to Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee — twice the number who would cross over if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the nomination, Pew found.

   Slice this any way that you wish to, but, it would appear that the Democratic supporters would rather have a white Republican in office over their own party representative. Four more years of a Bush wannabe just because the other candidate is black? WTF

20 Things That You Have To Believe In To Be A Republican

   This is just an idiot post which has been revived from the dead only because we have our elections coming up. On that note, I give you the characteristics that you will need if you decide to go suicidal and become a Republican.

  A similar version of this has been on the Internet for years, but I think that you will like it. All of these are very accurate when it comes to Republicans.

  Here is the source.

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

4. “Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

5. A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

13. Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

18. You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist; but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

News From Around The United States

   From NewsWeek

The number of sex abuse claims against Roman Catholic clergy dropped for the third consecutive year, but total payouts to victims nearly doubled to reach their highest level ever, according to a new report for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Dioceses and religious orders received 691 new allegations last year, compared with 714 in 2006. The overwhelming majority of claims date back decades. Settlements with victims increased by 90 percent over the same period, to more than $526 million _ the largest amount for one year.

  I wonder how much abuse the church is still trying to sweep under the rug?


WASHINGTON -- President Bush, responding to news that the U.S. economy lost another 63,000 jobs in February, acknowledged that "our economy has slowed" but predicted a just-signed stimulus package could help stem the tide.
"Losing a job is painful and I know Americans are concerned about our economy. So am I," Bush said. "I know this is a difficult time for our economy. But we recognized the problem early and we provided the economy with a booster shot."

  February is the second month straight that the economy has lost jobs and it is the fastest pace in 5 years. Ain't life becoming grand under the Bush Crime Syndicate?


President George W. Bush, marking five years since the Department of Homeland Security was created, said the United States was not safe from terrorists who were plotting another attack as he spoke.

Bush, who is battling Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives over eavesdropping legislation, has been accused over the years by critics of using scare tactics for political advantage.

  Of course, when it comes to the telecom amnesty part of FISA...

"At this moment, somewhere in the world, a terrorist is planning an attack on us. I know that's inconvenient thought for some, but it is the truth," Bush said.

The Senate passed legislation including the blanket, retroactive immunity that Bush wants, but House Democratic leaders have not brought that bill for a vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,

"We are still working very hard to see if we can come to agreement. But we're not going to abandon the Constitution of the United States."

  Let us all remember that Pelosi made the above statement. It will be something to hold against her when she and the rest of the Democrats cave in to the Bush Crime Syndicate once again. I have no faith in this woman or our Congress when it comes to doing anything right for " We, the People."

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Could Bush Declare Martial Law Before Elections?

  I have covered this issue many times before in the past, but with the November presidential elections right around the corner, it needs repeating once more. This time though, the story is coming from CommonDreams.

Thursday, March 6, 2008 by

The Election That Might Not Happen

by Betsy Hartmann

It’s springtime in American politics. It’s only early March, but there’s a giddy, hopeful feeling to this election season, a sense that new leadership is blossoming. We could have a Democrat in the White House next year. But winter isn’t over yet and we need to balance our hope with a little fear. In 2000 Bush and Cheney stole the election in Florida. In 2004 they played dirty tricks in Ohio. In 2008 could they go one step further — and suspend the election altogether?

The necessary architecture may already be in place. On May 4 last year, the White House issued the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, key parts of which remain classified and hence shrouded from public view. The directive outlines procedures to respond to a “catastrophic emergency,” defined broadly as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Of course previous administrations also had emergency plans. But the Bush directive transfers power from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the White House, where the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is assigned the job of “National Continuity Coordinator”.

The unclassified part of the directive reveals little about who would have the authority to invoke emergency powers during a catastrophe. Nor does it refer to existing laws, such as the National Emergencies Act, that establish congressional checks on the executive’s power to impose martial law or other extraordinary measures. Its wording is ambiguous - the directive shall be implemented “consistent with applicable law,” without making clear which laws are “applicable”. “The Bush legal team has pushed a controversial theory that the Constitution gives the president an unwritten power to disobey laws at his own discretion to protect national security,” writes Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe. He quotes legal specialists who describe the vagueness of the new directive as “troubling”.

Also troubling is the Department of Homeland Security’s $385 million contract awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root in January 2006 to build temporary detention facilities. According to a Halliburton press release, the contract provides for augmenting existing immigration detention facilities in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” It also includes the development of a plan “to react to a national emergency, such as a national disaster.” Construction would commence only after an “emergency” is declared. While immigrants appear to be the main target, one cannot rule out the possibility that the detention centers could be used as holding pens for dissidents during a proclaimed emergency. Recent crackdowns on illegal immigrants have included military-style night raids on homes and factories. Are we getting softened up for the expansion of police state tactics?

But perhaps the most important card the Bush administration holds in its deck is a stacked conservative majority on the Supreme Court. In 2000 the Court turned a blind eye to the theft of Al Gore’s electoral victory in Florida. Should we expect better today? Just last month the Court refused to review the ACLU’s legal challenge to the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance program. Can we depend on the Court to challenge emergency rule and a suspension of elections?

Even with this architecture in place, the Bush administration would need a trigger to declare a state of emergency. One can imagine several possible scenarios:

War with Iran - unfortunately, not so far-fetched. The National Intelligence Estimate released in December concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. But when have Bush and Cheney ever based their foreign policy decisions on evidence? Moreover, the most important reason they want to attack Iran is to control the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, nukes or no nukes.

The assassination of a presidential candidate. Obama evokes memories of JFK and Martin Luther King. The bullet could come from a lone racist, a terrorist, or an agent of a state. The threat is real. The Secret Service knows it and so should we.

A terrorist strike, on the scale of 9/11 or worse. Again, not so far-fetched. Bush and Cheney have been Osama bin Laden’s greatest recruiters, making the U.S. appear to be the enemy of millions across the world. Al Qaeda may consider that regime change in the U.S. is not in their interest.

With the right spin, any of these events might be construed as a “catastrophic emergency.”

These worst-case scenarios probably will not come to pass. We’ll probably all be able to sleep peacefully in our beds in the early hours of November 5, after watching the election results on TV. The value of worst-case scenarios lies not in their accurate prediction of events, but rather in what they tell us about the risks we face. We shouldn’t let hope make us naïve. We need to be alert, our vision razor-sharp. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It could be the price of elections, too. Let’s not count our spring flowers before they bloom.

Betsy Hartmann’s latest book is the political thriller Deadly Election. A longstanding activist in the international women’s health movement, she lives in Amherst, MA where she teaches and directs the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College. Her other books include Reproductive Rights and Wrongs and the novel The Truth About Fire about neo-Nazis in the American heartland. See

John McCain And " The Millionaires Amendment "

  Not sure where to start on this one. It seems that presidential wannabe John McCain may have a slight problem with taking the oath "preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution," because a few of his past actions put in some serious doubts on whether he can do that.

   I am thinking of one case, in particular. This one is before the Supreme Court at the moment and it concerns the "millionaires' amendment" which is part of the McCain-Feingold legislation which is supposed to fight corruption among our people running for office in the Senate, House and whatever else.

  So what is this amendment?

The Millionaires’ Amendment is a part of the McCain-Feingold Law passed in 2002 that increases contribution limits for candidates who face opponents who put substantial sums of their personal funds into their own campaigns.

  • There is a $350,000 threshold that triggers the Millionaires’ Amendment in House races. 
  • In Senate races, it depends on how populous the state is.  For example in Arizona the threshold is $663,040, and in Connecticut it is $514,960.  In a large state like California, the millionaire would have to put in at least $2,454,000 before the Millionaires’ Amendment is triggered.  This link has a list of the threshold amounts for Senate races in every state.
  • Once the millionaire candidate trips the spending threshold, the candidate must notify his  opponents and the FEC by filing a FEC Form 10 within 24 hours.
  • Opposing candidates then follow the instructions on Form 11 to determine whether or not they have increased limits.

How much do the contribution limits go up?

  • In House races, the limits can increase to $6,900 per election.
  • In Senate races, the increase in limits depends on how much money the millionaire candidate puts it.  Increased contribution limits will be $6,900 or $13,800 per election.

Under certain circumstances the national and state parties may make unlimited coordinated party expenditures on behalf of their general election candidate.    Source

   Here is how this works, according to Newsweek

When a self-financing House candidate spends more than $350,000, his opponent gets three benefits. The opponent can receive contributions of $6,900, triple the statutory limit of $2,300 per election (primary or general). Second, the donors' tripled contributions are not counted against those donors' aggregate contribution limits for the two-year cycle. Third, the opponent is permitted to coordinate with his party committee unlimited party expenditures that otherwise would be limited by statute. Senate campaigns are subject to even more generous provisions for candidates with self-financing opponents.

This incumbent-protection measure mocked McCain-Feingold's pretense of being concerned exclusively with corruption—candidates cannot corrupt themselves by spending their own money on their own behalf.  

     But wait, there's more!

He ( McCain ) seemed aghast that under the amendment, "A millionaire can spend $1 million and immediately the other person can raise $50 million in coordinated and direct party expenditures." So McCain understood that the amendment punishes self-financing candidates who use their noncorrupting money to disseminate their political speech. And it punishes them by increasing their opponents' access to supposedly corrupting money. But McCain voted for it. Perhaps he, like many other legislators, wanted to "level the playing field." The court, however, has held that it is unconstitutional to legislate equal quantities of speech. More Here

  It would seem that John McCain is in no position to take any kind of oath to defend our Constitution, seeing as he has no idea what is in it, much like his boss Bush.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The Take On FISA From The Editorials In Our Newspapers

   From DailyKos

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

According the American Civil Liberties Union, the president could have extended the act until Congress could figure out how to hammer out a palatable version of the FISA bill. But, says Timothy Sparapani, senior legislative counsel, on the ACLU's Web site, "The president continues to misrepresent the situation with FISA. Fear mongering and making unsubstantiated claims of lost intelligence does not help Congress reach a resolution."

No, but it might force Congress' hand, nonetheless, into passing a version of the bill that has everything Bush wants.

He's already threatened to veto anything less. But what of those who feel the government is violating their privacy?

"Suck it up," said the president of the United States, the same guy who led the charge into Iraq to, you guessed it, protect our freedoms.

We'd like to take this opportunity to remind the House that we'd like to see less sucking up and more standing up, please.

The Houston Chronicle:

What this dispute is really about is shielding telecoms from any responsibility for enabling surveillance of customers that might have violated their constitutional rights to privacy.

It's understandable that Bush would want to prevent court scrutiny of a potentially illegal spying program that operated outside the law for so long. But the administration is putting the protection of corporations and partisan posturing above the constitutional rights of the American people.

The San Jose Mercury News:

Congress is supposed to keep presidents from overreaching. Since the Senate has already caved, it's up to the House to defend both our privacy rights and the principle of accountability against the president's power grab.

Americans didn't buy it when Richard Nixon asserted, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

They shouldn't buy that argument now, either.

The Philadelphia Daily News:

"Telecom immunity" legislation could just as accurately be called "justice obstruction" legislation. If passed, it not only lets lawbreakers avoid detection, it provides a blank check for future spying. Just cry wolf - er, terror.

Right now, your rights to privacy are hanging by a thread in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Feb.16, 19 Democratic senators who should have known better got so weak in the knees at the thought of being labeled "soft on terror" that they voted to give the telecom companies the pass from prosecution that Bush demanded....

Contact members of the House and tell them to take these threats seriously - that is, the threats to our privacy rights, and the threat to the rule of law represented by "telecom immunity."

Net Neutrality Eroding

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 by The Seattle Times

Internet in Jeopardy as Neutrality Erodes


The Internet is a major artery through which new ideas and creativity flows. This conduit for Americans’ innovative abilities is in jeopardy.

The Internet has developed into a clean canvas for all to play on and create. The cable and telecommunication companies that dominate broadband in the United States are fighting any network-neutrality law that would ensure the Internet stays this way.Consumer groups, and many Internet users, are worried that network providers want to disrupt competing services or content. There are a number of recent examples of this happening. The most high profile being AT&T censoring comments critical of President Bush by Pearl Jam during a concert shown over the telecom’s network.

The issue moves beyond censorship. There is well-founded fear that network providers want to degrade content, or charge companies more to use their networks. Inevitably, an extra charge to a company gets passed on to the consumer.

The Federal Communications Commission, the regulatory agency responsible for broadband and telecommunications, is taking an interest in net neutrality. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said at a hearing last week at Harvard University the commission will act if network providers meddle with the Internet.

The hearing was in response to complaints that Comcast blocked use of BitTorrent, a file-sharing program. The abuse was revealed by The Associated Press.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps wants more hearings. The chairman should agree. It will be harder for Comcast, and other network providers, to bend the Internet to their will if the FCC is watching, and getting input from the consuming public.

Lawmakers need not wait for the FCC to act. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Chip Pickering, R-Miss., have introduced the Internet Preservation Freedom Act of 2008. In addition to creating a net-errneutrality law, the bill would require a series of summits about the future of Internet policy.

The Internet has become a cornerstone for American ingenuity. Congress and the FCC can see to it that the United States remains competitive with an outlet for our best minds.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Dennis Kucinich Wins His Race

  This is some real encouraging news from the political arena. Despite being hammered by his Democratic opponents, all four of them, Kucinich has won his primary race and will take on Republican Jim Trakas, a past state representative.


  I for one am pleased to see that Dennis won especially since you had the big-money class and the media trying to make him look bad. I do mean the big-time Democrats and their money. A real Democrat and a real Patriot will once again be doing the right thing in the House, which is where Dennis does his best work.

Bush Endorses John McCain As GOP Presidential Nomination

   Like we are all surprised to hear this one. But I guess that now it is all official and all of that crap. George Bush, our Resident in Chief, has endorsed Senator John McCain as the Republican Presidential wannabe. I can just hear all of the hooting and hollering from the CPAC members as I type this.

  From the Rose Garden, Bush said "John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president _ somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger."

"A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party, Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."

"If my showing up and endorsing him helps him _ or if I'm against him and it helps him _ either way, I want him to win. This is an age-old question that every president has had to answer, and there is an appropriate amount of campaigning for me to do. But they're not going to be voting for me."  More Here

   I guess that the Republican's liked Bush's two terms in office because a vote for McCain is a vote for the continued policies of George Bush. 70% of us have had more than enough of Bush and the Republican bullshit for the past eight years, so, in order to avoid four more years of it, we have to get those Democrats who will vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, to not cut their noses off to spite their faces, and to stick with the Democratic ticket.

    i do not like Hillary Clinton to much myself, but I will certainly not cast my vote for McCain because of dislike for the candidate. That line of reason makes no sense at all. For that matter, I do not care for Barack Obama all to much either, but I care less for more of the McCain ( GOP ) party.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

McCain Gets GOP Nomination, And Howard Dean Comments

: Howard Dean's statement:

"John McCain is out of touch with the issues facing Americans each day. Instead of offering solutions to the high cost of health care, help for the middle class or ideas to create jobs, McCain offers 100 years in Iraq and more of the same Bush budgets that have heaped debt onto our children and damaged our economy. Instead of ending the influence of lobbyists in Washington, he's hired them to run his campaign. The closer voters look at the real McCain record, the more they will realize he cannot be trusted to deliver the change America wants."

  I have been tracking down McCain's record on many issues and votes, and when I have completed my research, many people are going to be surprised at what a shithead John McCain really is.

Rep.Rep. Nancy Boyda Not Ready For FISA Shredding Of Constitution


  "I am adamant about protecting the Constitution. They're giving nothing in return for it. We're not getting any more security and they're shredding the Constitution," said U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Second Dist.

"What shocks me is how members of Congress from Kansas would so readily give up 230 years of our Constitution without gaining any additional security," Boyda said.

"The Bush administration wants the cases flat out dismissed," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant for the ACLU. "That doesn't just save the telecoms money, but it buries Bush administration wrongdoing."

"The question is why the president is completely unwilling to tell Congress what he did," Boyda said. "It seems to me it's probably about domestic surveillance."

"This time, what they are proposing will absolutely gut it — there will not be a FISA left," Richardson said.

"If you are willing to have the government come into your home and into your personal life without any probable cause and without any oversight or any warrant, then you have just given up our democracy," Boyda said.
In 1759, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."   Entire Article

  In case you have not noticed it yet, We The People, are getting screwed!

Technorati Tags: , ,

Monday, March 03, 2008

John McCain, Preventive Healthcare, And A Little Reality

    At this point, I am only looking at one part of his healthcare view.

   McCain contends soaring health care costs are the result of treatment for chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, lung problems and heart disease. He wants to provide incentives to improve preventive care and develop a national medical records network to enhance care of people with chronic diseases. "We need less use of hospitals and emergency rooms," McCain told the Register. "We need to pay for the medicine that is effective and reward better coordination of care."   USAToday

  I'm not sure what planet McCain is on, but it surely is not planet earth.

   I am one of his chronic disease carriers, having diabetes. This illness is an expensive disease to have to deal with, whether you take care of it or not. No matter what you do to keep diabetes under control, you are going to have problems with it now and then. Having dealt with this disease for some 36 years, I can tell McCain that preventive care is not going to help lower those healthcare cost that he is so concerned about. It may be a very small step in the right direction, but it doesn't come close.

   Think about it for a second, will you? What kind of preventive care can you take for cancer or diabetes? Cutting down or stopping your smoking helps reduce your chances of acquiring lung cancer, but what about the other types?

  I would submit that in order to bring down these costs and others, that medical insurance needs to be more affordable and that is not going to happen if the insurance providers get to continue to set the rates that you and I have to pay. You are screwed if you have a pre-existing condition to start with. I know from my own experiences, that you are not going to get any kind of decent coverage even if paying an outrageous $350 per month in premiums, or more.

  Just for the sake of argument though, let's look at the " preventive care " option. First off, I'll re-track my earlier words about preventive care not lowering over-all cost for healthcare. The problem with this approach, though, is that not all of us can afford the kinds of preventive care and/or early treatment that many of us may need.


   20 years ago I had some of the best company paid health insurance that I have ever run across. My premiums were only something like $12 per week for myself, my wife, and one child. Living in a decent house which was cheap to rent, I could afford to make my treks to the doctors office every six months, have my eyes examined, and get my dental care taken care of for a very reasonable out-of- pocket expense. I was only making $9.25 an hour at work.

   Now lets move up to 2007. I was making $10. an hour with no company health insurance. I got my own insurance for $350 per month. I'm high risk so anything reasonable was out of the question. Diabetics hit that high risk area no matter how great of shape you are in. You are fucked! Throw in the rest of the cost of living money, and I still had no cash left over for those $70 doctor visits, before my $30 co-pay. Let's talk $1,500 before insurance would even begin coverage. Heck of a deductible isn't it?

   What about all of those people in this country with no insurance at all? Been there, done that. My diabetic expenses run at $400 per month. There is going to be at least one or two visits to the emergency room on a yearly basis because going to a doctor on a regular basis is out of the question. The last time that I did go see one, $40 for office visit,$140 for new insulin prescriptions, $46 for a simple blood test. $226 for an hour visit, all out of my own pocket.  That's just with a non-specialist! As if that isn't bad enough, try going to see a dentist. If you have no insurance and you need something done other than having a tooth pulled, you had better have some gold to sell or either some very good stocks to dump!

  Anyway. Preventive care is a great concept but it is useless if the average Joe cannot afford that preventive care. Affordability is the key here. If you don't want the tax-payers getting stuck with paying for my $3,500 emergency room visit, then make that " Preventive Care " affordable to myself and others.

Wendy's Shooting Kills 2 In Florida

  Another day in America and another shooting.

  West Palm Beach, Florida got it this time when an individual dressed in a suit and tie entered a Wendy's at around lunchtime today and broke out shooting. 5 people were injured and one killed as was the gunman, who apparently killed himself.

  There were 10 to 15 people in the restaurant when the gunman came out of the bathroom and started firing, using a 9 mm pistol, according to the police. More Here

Technorati Tags: , , ,

John McCain: Worst Senator When It Comes To Our Children

  The Children's Defense Fund Action Council came out with their yearly review of who does and who does not support important bills when dealing with our children. It would appear that Senator John McCain either doesn't like kids or that he has more important things to do when it comes to voting on important issues.

Think Progress

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) received a 10 percent rating — the worst in the U.S. Senate.

CDF ranked members on 10 votes affecting children:

1. Increase minimum wage (H.R. 2)
2. Increase funding for children with disabilities (S. Con. Res. 21)
3. Protect children from unsafe medications (S. 1082)
4. 2008 Budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)
5. SCHIP Reauthorization (H.R. 976)
6. College Cost Reduction and Access Act (H.R. 2669)
7. SCHIP (H.R. 976 - motion to concur)
8. DREAM Act (S. 2205)
9. Funding child health and education (H.R. 3043)
10. Improving Head Start programs (H.R. 1429)

McCain has missed 57 percent of Senate votes this session, being absent or voting “present” for 8 out of 10 children-related votes. McCain voted “yes” to increase the minimum wage; his only other vote was voting “no” on SCHIP reauthorization on Aug. 2, 2007:

  You can download the full report ( PDF ) here.

FISA: Congress Getting Ready To Screw You Again

  I'm not even going to say anything about this because it wouldn't be fit for print, even by me. I will say that these fucking cowards in our Democratic Party have got to be replaced with some real Americans!

FISA Fight: Capitulation watch

by mcjoan  Mon Mar 03, 2008

It's developed from speculation to obliquely sourced possibility to pretty likely that the House is going to cave and give Bush his Protect AT&T Act. For no good reason at all.

The House Intelligence Committee chairman expects a compromise soon on renewal of an eavesdropping law that could provide legal protections for telecommunications companies as President Bush has insisted....

Bush wants the House to agree to the Senate bill.

Reyes, D-Texas, said he was open to that possibility after receiving documents from the Bush administration and speaking to the companies about the industry's role in the government spy program.

"We are talking to the representatives from the communications companies because if we're going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and we want to understand what it is that we're giving immunity for," he said. "I have an open mind about that."

Regarding a compromise deal, Reyes said: "We think we're very close, probably within the next week we'll be able to hopefully bring it to a vote."

Bully for you, Congressman Reyes, for being able to talk to the telcos about their illegal activities. How about the rest of us? How about the American citizens who were spied on illegally and want to know why? Perhaps Congressman Reyes should consider calling those telco CEOs into a public hearing so that we could all learn about their role in the spying program before sealing that deal, before ensuring that those activities will never be examined by a court of law. And all due respect to the Congressman, his judgment on this matter shouldn't be substituted for that of a federal court.

While we're talking about hearings that should happen before any further action is taken on telco amnesty, or indeed any intelligence matter before the Congress, maybe Reyes would want to spend some time looking into Bush's Friday massacre of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, now to be known as the Intelligence Advisory Board. Along with the "foreign" being excised, so was any oversight capacity by that Board of any intelligence activity. Congressman Reyes could start his investigation by comparing the statements of policy from the old board vs. Bush's version:

Old EO: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to enhance the security of the United States by improving the quality and effectiveness of intelligence available to the United States, and to assure the legality of activities of the Intelligence Community, it is ordered as follows:

New EO: "Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the President and other officers of the United States with responsibility for the security of the Nation and the advancement of its interests have access to accurate, insightful, objective, and timely information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign powers."

What's missing? That's right: "assure the legality of the activities of the Intelligence Community." This administration is attempting to make all intelligence activities--foreign and domestic--by the government extra-legal, outside of the jurisdiction of the courts and completely under the purview of his office. Telco amnesty is just one part of that effort. Seems like something the Congress's Intelligence Committees, as well as Judiciary, would want to look into a bit.

Just because the executive no longer believes in the rule of law and is doing its damnedest to cut the judiciary out of any oversight of intelligence, it doesn't mean the legislative branch should follow suit.

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Hillary Clinton Accepting Donations From Problem Riddled Firm

  Hillary Clinton must be needing campaign cash pretty bad to be taking contributions from individuals at one company,International Profit Associates, which has been tagged for massive charges of sexual harassment.

   Senator Clinton has received $170,000 from the company has yet to return the funds, which is kind of bad when you also take into consideration that International Profit Associates CEO John R. Burgess, has a criminal record.

   From MSNBC

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.

Telecom Amnesty And The Protect America Act

   Just to show you how deeply entrenched the Bush administration is with the telecom industry and why amnesty should not be included in the FISA bill.

    Last fall, former attorney general John D. Ashcroft signed a letter to top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging retroactive immunity for the companies. His consulting firm, the Ashcroft Group, was on retainer to AT&T at the time. An Ashcroft spokeswoman declined comment.  Washington Post

  Why does that comes as no surprise? On further note:

Perhaps most important, disclosures in the lawsuits could clarify the scope of the government's surveillance and establish whether, as the plaintiffs allege, it involved the massive interception of purely domestic communications with the help of the nation's largest providers: AT&T, Cingular Wireless, BellSouth, Sprint and MCI/Verizon. (Verizon Communications bought MCI in 2006.)

"I think the administration would be very loath for folks to realize that ordinary people were being surveilled," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the lead lawsuit, against AT&T.    WaPo

  Do you and I really need to hear any more? Hell yes we do!

House Dems To Split FISA/Protect America Act?

   This is a rumor that has been going around since Thursday so we aren't sure about validity at this time. Either way, this can't be good.


Under pressure to end an impasse over espionage legislation, House Democrats are considering a plan to vote on a bill next week that would give the government broad new eavesdropping authorities but strip out a provision that would protect phone companies from lawsuits.

Senior Democratic aides said the plan would set up a separate vote on the divisive issue of whether to grant legal immunity to phone companies that took part in a secret wiretapping program authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"The objective would be to pass something that is less controversial," yet still allow Democrats to register their objections to the immunity provision, said one senior Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other party leaders have yet to reach a decision on the matter.

Republican officials said they likely would back the proposal to divide the bill into two pieces, as long as there was no delay in taking up the immunity provision. "We would be OK with that as long as the immunity provision [can] become law," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Officials from both sides acknowledged that there are probably enough votes in the House to pass the measure protecting telephone companies. But splitting the bill would give Democrats who oppose the immunity provision political cover for voting in favor of the broader legislation.

  Political cover? WTF is that supposed to mean anyway? Do these assholes in the Democratic Party really think that playing with this bill and giving Bush and ATT everything that they want, and that we are going to just settle for them appearing to be trying to protect our better interest? These fucks must have went to the same schools that Bush went to because they are all idiots!

    You Democrats who vote for amnesty will have no careers when your next elections come around. Got that Rockefeller? Pelosi?

   This bill does not need to be split, period! You know what you need to do and who to call, so get to it.

Blue Dog suspects. As long as you're calling, try Hoyer, too: Phone - (202) 225-4131, Fax - (202) 225-4300  DK

  • Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608
  • Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602
  • Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314
  • Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893
  • Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: (202) 225-4801, Fax: (202) 225-4392
  • Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830
  • Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422
  • Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377
  • Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615
  • Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671
  • Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038
  • Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765
  • Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638
  • Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035
  • Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172
  • Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284
  • Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996
  • Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
  • Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807
  • Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594
  • Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394