J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Legislation’ Category

Incorporated in the below in reference to American citizens, is the following statement:

…you still believe that the strength of this nation is in the character and courage and ingenuity of the American people and not the politicians and bureaucrats.

This is your moment. Now is your time. Let your voice be heard

Representative Pence is correct. The Republicans and a few Democrats in Congress may not have the power to stop Pelosi and Reid from shoving more government control down our throats. It is up to us to do our part.

Call, e-mail and/or write your Senators and Representatives. Tell them to just say no to the Speaker and Majority Leader on the pending health care legislation.

Tweet This Post

While Senator Obama is claiming it was he alone and John McCain had nothing to do with the bailout deal, the Washington Post, no friend of McCain’s, haswritten a piece that gives the inside look of what happened on Thursday in Washington.

When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to “just touch gloves” with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

“I appreciate what you’ve done here, but I’m not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal,” McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. “Just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”

For a moment, as Graham described it, “you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable.” Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before — one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans — was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain’s presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day’s events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain’s arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit — even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

“If there is a deal with the House involved, it’s because of John McCain,” Graham, one of the Arizonan’s closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain’s dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

[Emphasis mine]

There were specific things the House Republicans did not want in the package and since Pelosi and Reid didn’t want to take full blame for the bill, even though they had enough votes to pass it and excluded the House republicans “by mistake” it appears the House Republicans got things cleaned up a bit and with the backing of Sen. McCain.

It looks like Boehner and Company had more sense than the Republican senators or the Democratic representatives and that’s why they were not invited to the negotiating table.

In walks McCain, he makes a statement that even if he has to stand alone he will, and out comes a better proposal. No one is happy about it, but one candidate shouldn’t be taking all the credit for it. Look at the table in the link Sue provided here and see how much worse it would have been without the House Republicans sticking to their guns.

Tweet This Post

Most legislation submitted for consideration in Congress is difficult and time consuming to work through in its’ entirety.

Not so with H.R. 6615 authored by Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX):

To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes.

Sure don’t see the possibility of this going much further than committee status but it would be fun to see it debated on the House floor.

Congressman Gohmert at the very least should receive credit for having the nerve to take on those Justices who believe that terrorists/enemy combatants have any protections afforded by the United States Constitution.

Check out the rest of the Bill..if nothing else you might get a good chuckle! HT: Hot Air

Tweet This Post

The remarks made today by Representatative Stark on the floor of the House are reprehensible.
To accuse a sitting President of amusing himself with the death of our troops goes well beyond behavior which should ever be condoned by any of our elected officials.

These words were uttered during the debate to override the President’s veto of the expansion of the S-CHIP program. The leadership in the House should demand an apology from Rep. Stark but I certainly will not hold my breath. Republicans need to make clear that remarks such as these if made by their side of the aisle would receive calls for at the least an apology if not censure. It is outrageous that this should stand on any level without serious challenge.

At this time it appears the House has not succeeded
in their attempt to override.

12:16 – House fails to override, 273-156. The Democrats picked up 8 votes, and I believe the Republicans gained 11. This means that Congress will have to act quickly to maintain S-CHIP benefits to current qualifiers — and that means some horse trading with the White House.

*Update: Senator Reid is in no mood for compromise with the White House:

The bill is bipartisan, and the Senate has shown it could override a veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has replied with an emphatic “no” when asked if he would seek a compromise with the administration.

I would like to say I’m surprised but this House vote was a stinging defeat for the Majority Leader. He may find in order to save this program he will have to deal with a President who continues to thwart many of his efforts [HT: AJ Strata] not ony on this program but also attempts to threaten our national security.

So much for that lame duck President we heard so much about.

*Update 2:Republican Leader in the House issues a statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement regarding remarks made on the House floor by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) during the debate on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP):

“Our troops in Iraq are fighting against al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists hellbent on killing the people we are sent here to represent. Congressman Stark’s statement dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America’s armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security. Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas.”

During debate on the SCHIP children’s health care legislation today, Rep. Stark stated: “You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

The above is a Drudge Report flash. I will update accordingly if there are changes.

Tweet This Post

Leave them alone; they are just trying to do their job.

UK The government was last night accused of turning the clock back 25 years by introducing a law that will allow courts to imprison prostitutes who are arrested for soliciting. The move has provoked the fury of women’s support groups, who say the move will do nothing to address the root causes of the illicit trade in sex.
The landmark 1982 Criminal Justice Act removed the power of courts to jail prostitutes for soliciting, replacing the threat of custodial sentences with fines. But the new Criminal Justice and Immigration bill, which will be debated in parliament in October, gives magistrates powers to detain soliciting prostitutes in prison for up to three days on remand if they fail to attend mandatory counselling sessions and ignore court orders.
‘It’s a new way to lock women up for consenting to sex; it’s just appalling,’ said Nina Lopez, spokeswoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes. ‘You can’t force women into rehabilitation.’
Under the law, prostitutes caught soliciting can be ordered to attend three meetings with a court-appointed expert to discuss ‘ending their involvement’ with prostitution. Magistrates will be able to summon those who fail to attend the sessions before a court. Those who do not obey the summons can be arrested and imprisoned for up to 72 hours.

The new law is ostensibly designed to help prostitutes break out of a cycle of vice. Drawn up partly in response to the murders of five prostitutes in Suffolk last year, it is supposed to help rehabilitation by putting women in touch with health officials and probation officers. But given the chaotic nature of most prostitutes’ lives, experts said it was likely that many will not attend meetings and end up in prison as a result.

‘This is yet another example of the state’s wish to exert moral disapproval of prostitution while recognising that it will not go away,’ said Harry Fletcher, assistant general-secretary of the probation officers’ union, Napo. ‘The threat of custody is extremely punitive.’

The threat of tougher measures also appears to be at odds with the government’s beliefs. The use of ‘traditional’ enforcement involving police crackdowns does not appear to reduce disorder, Home Office research indicates .

Some 3,500 prostitutes a year are brought to court or cautioned for soliciting offences. Allowing courts to detain prostitutes could see thousands in prison over the next decade, according to experts, who believe the new powers will prove popular with police and magistrates frustrated by the number of offenders who default on fines.

But at a time when the prison population is close to maximum capacity and prison reform groups are warning that the state is already locking up too many women, there are concerns that steps to detain prostitutes will backfire.

Story

Tweet This Post

It has been another whirlwind day on Republican blogs. Many see the death of the Republican Party due to the upcoming Illegal Immigration legislation. As I wrote in the wee hours of yesterday morning, they are entitled to their thoughts. I for one do not respond well to shrill rhetoric and tend to tune out those who believe they have the superior voice on any topic.

I found myself searching for reasonable attention to this issue and found it in the usual spots. I may not agree 100% with any of these individuals, however I am drawn to the respect they show both their readers and the process.

Captains Quarters where Mr. Morrissey writes:

As I wrote yesterday, this is about as good as we will get in this Congress. In fact, the Democrats probably had enough votes to pass something much more like a wide-open amnesty, given a few Republican votes in support of that and the relaxed attitude of the White House on immigration reform. The GOP did a pretty good job of holding the line and forcing the Democrats to include the border-first triggers, the reduction of the family interest, and the rest of what Kyl managed to retain.

It’s not great, and it’s not even very good. It’s not bad, though, and given our lack of strength in Congress and the White House on this issue, it’s a good deal that will strengthen our national security now rather than wait another two years to address it. To quote the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. This is one of those times. (via Hot Air)

The Captain linked to this at Big Lizards which is a great overview of all the information which has been tossed about in several locations concerning this bill. While I appreciate all his efforts to consolidate what has otherwise been difficult to follow, I thought this paragraph was fantastic.

- I haven’t read anything on the subject by Michelle Malkin, the Center for Security Policy, nor Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO, 92%), and for a very good reason: their prior hysterical opposition to any immigration reform that even hints at anything other than a wall, imprisonment of employers, and mass deportations of 11 million illegals. They have collectively become “the boys who cried ‘amnesty!’” — at everything, without exception, that goes beyond enforcement.

Neither have I read the above individuals as I clearly remember what took place the last time this time bomb was addressed. IMHO these folks contributed heavily to the loss of both Houses of Congress in 2006. Leaving no room for opposing opinions or debate will never prove an answer to me.

Another person I admire for never jumping the shark on Illegal Immigration is Harold Hutchinson.
Here is a brief look at his commentary. Writing at Called As Seen:

We were never going to deport 12-20 million illegal immigrants. We can, however, fine them, make sure they pay their taxes, and find out who has been employing them and if not punish them, we will know who to keep an eye on.

Last but certainly not least the Anchoress who always writes with clarity.

For thirty years the immigration situation has been kicked down the road from one president to another. For most of that time, little was even said about it. Since 9/11 some folks have been demanding action but rejecting anything but the most extreme response. Lost in all of this is the fact that many, many folks here illegally came legally and then for one reason or another remained past their date. Lots of them have worked hard, lived responsibly and built lives and families here. Their humanity and ours demands that we find a way to make them productive citizens without “shipping them back” and disrupting whole societies.

Each of these individuals seems to understand that while we all have our personal feelings and opinions on this topic, there will never be the absolute answer many are demanding. I have no desire to throw the party of which I have been a member for many years under the bus because they chose to compromise with Democrats.

Now it is wait and see..what will the Senate debate produce in the way of a final bill and will the House find it acceptable? Will the President sign an end product into law? There will be ample time at each juncture to debate the fine points of this bill. This legislation could change direction many times between now and completion.

Personal thanks to all those whom I have linked. It was a pleasure to read calm, reasoned words on this explosive topic.

Tweet This Post

President Bush has reaffirmed to Congress his intention to veto any bill which would federally fund abortion according to this article at NRO.

President Bush took the extraordinary step of preemptively issuing a veto threat against an entire category of potential legislative tactics on Thursday afternoon. In a letter to congressional leaders, Bush warned that any move to use appropriations riders or the budget process to provide support for abortion, or to undermine existing protections against such support, would be vetoed.

“I am concerned that this year Congress may consider legislation that could substantially change Federal policies and laws on abortion,” Bush wrote, “and allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life. I am writing to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my views on these important issues.” His letter left no room for misunderstanding. “I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion,” he concluded, “or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.”

The letter is unusual, but not unprecedented. Indeed, in June of 1991, President George H. W. Bush sent Democratic leaders of Congress a very similar letter, making much the same pledge. This year, in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress, Republicans in both the House and Senate sent the White House letters requesting that the president send such a message, as they put it, “reaffirming your strong pro-life policy convictions and serving notice that you will veto any legislation that weakens present pro-life policy.”

These letters from House and Senate members had 155 and 34 signatures, respectively, which would be enough to uphold a veto in both houses. In effect, this means the Democrats can know in advance that a move to weaken existing pro-life measures or encourage the destruction of nascent life would not make it through the process, and would only hold up the relevant budget bills.

If Congress is aware that tacking federal funding for abortion into the budget bill will cause a veto with no chance to override, why waste time and taxpayer money. Draw a seperate bill and let it stand or fall on its own.

The line item veto looks better all the time, not just for this President but for all to come.

Read on.
A copy of the letter President Bush sent to Congress is available here.

Tweet This Post