Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill, Says Anyone Who Claims They’ll Understand It ‘Is Trying to Pull the Wool Over Our Eyes’

via: cnsnews

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as “arcane,” “confusing,” “hard stuff to understand,” and “incomprehensible.”   He likened it to the ”gibberish” used in credit card disclosure forms.

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.
 
Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill.  “It was past 2 a.m. in the East–and Obama’s top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance–when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation,” said the AP. 
 
Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a “plain language description” of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.

“It’s not just conceptual, it’s a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration,” said Bingaman.
 
But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.

“The conceptual language is not good enough,” said Cornyn. “We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”

Carper said he would ”probably” read the “plain English version” of the bill as opposed to the actual text.
 
In a Thursday afternoon interview outside the hearing room where the Finance Committee was debating the final amendments to the still-unseen bill, Carper explained why he believes it would be useless for both members of the public and members of the Senate to read the bill’s actual text.

Committee members did not have a “clue,” he said, when one senator recently read them an example of some actual legislative language. When you look at the legislative language, he said, “it really doesn’t make much sense.”

“When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue–including people who have served on this committee for decades–what he was talking about,” said Carper. “So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’–and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense.”

Carper questioned whether anybody could read the actual legislative text and credibly claim to understand it.

If this bill became law, it would mandate dramatic changes in the U.S. health care system.
 
“So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that,” said Carper. “The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”
 
Carper compared the full legislative language of the bill to credit card disclosure documents that he described as “gibberish,” meaning that “you can’t read it and really know what it says.” 

When asked if Republican members of the committee should have a chance to read the full text of the bill if they believe they are capable of understanding it, Carper suggested Republicans would only pretend to understand the bill when in fact they would not understand it.
 
“They might say that they’re reading it.  They might say that they’re understanding it,” said Carper. “But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand.”
 
Carper said if Americans were given the chance to read the actual text of the bill he believes they would decide that it made little sense for either them—or members of Congress—to read such texts because of the difficulty in understanding them.
 
“I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language,” said Carper. “It’s just hard to decipher what it really means.”
 
CNSNews.com correspondent Edwin Mora contributed to this report.
 
Here is a full transcript of the CNSNews.com interview with Sen. Tom Carper (D.-Del.):
 
Nicholas Ballasy, CNSNews.com: I wanted to ask you if you plan, if you’re going, to read the entire actual text of the health care bill before the committee votes on it. 
 
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue–including people who have served on this committee for decades–what he was talking about. So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’–and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense. So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that. The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
 
Ballasy: Do you think–
 
Carper: But that’s a very good question and I’m glad you asked it, Nicholas. 
 
Ballasy: Do you think Republicans on the committee should be able to read the entire full actual text of the bill?
 
Carper: I, I–They might say that they’re reading it.  They might say that they’re understanding it. But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand. 
 
Ballasy: And the American people as well–
 
Carper: I use it to like, for example, credit card disclosures. If you actually read the stuff, you say, you read it and say, like dozens of pages: ‘What does this say?’ And this is one of the reasons why we’ve directed, among others, banks to use plain, plain language, plain English to explain what they’re doing, so that the gibberish, you can’t read it and really know what it says. 
 
Ballasy: The American people–do you think they should be able to read the bill online? Some have called for the bill to be online for at least 72 hours. Do you think they should be able to read the entire full actual text?
 
Carper: If people who work here on a daily basis and work with the legislation and shape the legislation–You know, we are pretty good at understanding the plain English version of the legislation. I think that should be certainly online and made available. The idea of folks–and what we’re, I think we’re doing, on my website is actually giving people an example of what legislative language looks like and how incomprehensible it can be.  And I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language. It’s just hard to decipher what it really means. 
 
Ballasy: Last question for you. If members on the committee, whether it’s Republican or Democrat, want to read the legislative language–if they feel they can understand it–will that language be available? Do you know where that language is? Have you seen any of the language or the full actual text? 
 
Carper: In the time that I’ve spent here, I’ve seen plenty of legislative language and I know more often than not it’s almost incomprehensible as to what it means. Because what you do is you take certain language and you insert it in other parts of the law, other parts of the bill, and it frankly almost defies comprehension in many instances. Why that is a value and why someone should need to read that, or feel the need–I don’t understand. The idea, is actually like, say, I get my credit card disclosure and I have a one or two page summary written in plain English and then I have like 40 or 50 pages written by an attorney or a bunch of attorneys that is almost impossible to understand–Why you would insist on reading the stuff that’s incomprehensible as opposed to the plain English language that’s ordered by law so that people can understand it, that’s beyond me.

Terry Jeffrey contributed to this report.

Obama says terrorists have constitutional rights

As we noted in our 2008 Voter Guide, then-candidate Barack Obama had taken the position that terrorist “enemy combatants” should in fact be treated more like “alleged criminals.” This position is now being followed by actions such as the FBI reading a list of rights to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Obama’s Assistant Attorney General testifying to a U.S. Senate committee that captured terrorists have many of the same constitutional rights as those afforded to American citizens.

As Senator Joseph Lieberman noted in the story below, the Obama administration position means captured terrorists will have more rights than uniformed prisoners of war had in any prior conflict we’ve been involved in. Thus, an Islamic terrorist, who fights under no country’s flag, does not wear a uniform, and targets civilians, will have more rights than a uniformed German soldier arrested on the battlefield in World War II.

Ideas do have consequences. And the consequences of affording such constitutional rights to terrorist enemy combatants are not only dangerous, not only unprecedented — they are absurd.

 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration’s view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizens.

Ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. “It is the administration’s view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional,” Kris said in his opening statement.

“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.

“Ah, yes,” Kris answered.

“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.

“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.

“So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?” McCain asked.

“Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions,” Kris said.

“The fact is they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, which apply to the rules of war,” McCain said. “I do not know of a time in American history where enemy combatants were given rights under the United States Constitution.”

Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel, Department of Defense (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Kris and Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel for the Department of Defense, said that military commissions were a viable “alternative” but that prosecuting terror suspects as criminals in U.S. federal courts was preferable – a position Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) took issue with at the hearing.

“Why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war?” Lieberman asked. “The fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the Revolutionary War, we’ve used military tribunals to try war criminals, or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war.

“Again, I think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorists, against the people who attacked us on 9/11, have taken us down, including the Supreme Court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history of military commissions,” Lieberman said.

“Why would you say the administration prefers to bring before our federal court system instead of military commissions that are really today’s version of the tribunals that we’ve used throughout our history to deal in a just way with prisoners of war?” Lieberman asked.

“I applaud this committee’s initiative to reform the military commission act. I think the military commission should be a viable ready alternative for national security reasons to deal with those who violate the laws of war, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion right now, and I thank the committee,” Johnson said.

“When you’re dealing with terrorists whose, and I’m going to say this on behalf of the administration, one of their fundamental aims is to kill innocent civilians, and so it is the administration’s view that direct violence on innocent civilians, let’s say in the continental United States, it might be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental United States,” Johnson said.

“Because the act of violence that was committed here was a violation of Title 18 (federal criminal law), as well as the law of war, so we feel strongly that both alternatives should exist,” Johnson added.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

“Well, I respectfully disagree,” Lieberman said. “These are people we believe are war criminals; that’s why we captured them. The greater legal protections of the terrorists because they have chosen to do something that pretty much has not been done before in our history to attack Americans, to kill people here in America, as they did on 9/11, civilians, innocents, it doesn’t matter, and to do it outside of uniform.

“So it puts us in a very odd position, giving these terrorists greater protections in our federal courts than we’ve given war criminals in any other time throughout our history, even though, in my opinion, they are at least as brutal and inhumane, probably more brutal and inhumane than any war criminals,” Lieberman said.

“Yes, it might also be an act of murder that killed people who were in the Trade Towers on 9/11, but it was an act of war,” Lieberman said. “And the people who did that do not deserve the same constitutional protections of those accused of murder in New York City.”

The hearing focused on the military commissions portion of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010, which includes changes to the Military Commission Act of 2006.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) summarized the changes in his opening statement.

 

• Relative to the admissibility of coerced testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the double standard in existing law, under which coerced statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to Dec. 30, 2005.
• Relative to the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden on detainees to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is not reliable and probative.
• Relative to the issue of access to classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and led to so much litigation.

We would substitute more established procedures based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons.

“Of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial would not apply,” Levin said.

“Our new language says, by contrast, that ‘Except as otherwise provided … the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in trials by military commission under this chapter.’ The exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities.”

Despite the ongoing debate, on June 25 the committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Staff at the Armed Services Committee press office could not say when the Senate will take up the bill.

CNSNews.com Someone HAS to be the Grownup

“Those shipments of paper bags to the House and Senate Office Buildings over the weekend are to treat the hyperventilating of Members and staff over the news that the CIA did some spying about which it did not tell the Congress. The New York Times front pager [Saturday] started thus: ‘The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.’ … Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use this latest report as evidence that she was correct in her assertion that the CIA lied to her about waterboarding in spite of the fact that this activity had nothing whatever to do with waterboarding. Pelosi has been scrambling for a hand-hold in this CIA thing and she now has been handed a scaffold. If the CIA lied about this surveillance program, doesn’t it stand to reason it would lie about the waterboarding thing? No. It doesn’t but this is not a college debating society, this is the Congress versus the nation’s spy agency. The problem is, the nuances of this fight will be lost on our enemies. The Taliban is killing Afghans and Americans in Afghanistan. Iran is looking for any cracks in the dam of Western opposition to its nuclear program. North Korea is … North Korea. One or all will see this as further evidence that America’s leaders are more focused on scoring cheap domestic political points than protecting the nation from outside attacks.” –political analyst Rich Galen

Republican Senator Questions 100 Stimulus Projects

via: cnsnews

Washington (AP) – Repairs for rural bridges, an under-highway safe crossing for turtles and efforts to protect the sage grouse population are among 100 projects a Republican senator pointed to Monday as questionable federal stimulus spending.
 
The list by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., includes projects others would identify as ideal for creating jobs and benefiting generations of Americans: skateboard parks, streetscapes, upgrades of park facilities, bike trails and parking garages.
 
Coburn’s list [which can be downloaded here] is partially a collection of news stories that questioned local projects to be funded under President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program. The White House has promoted the program by selecting favorable newspaper stories.
 
One of the most fiscally conservative senators, Coburn cited the repair of 37 rural bridges in Wisconsin that average little more than 500 vehicles apiece each day — with one carrying no more than 10 cars a day. The projects jumped over larger, urban repairs because they were “shovel ready.”
 
Local officials had a different perspective. Coburn, for instance, criticized $840,000 to repair a bridge in Portage County, Wis., that carries 260 vehicles a day largely to a backwater saloon and a country club.
 
Bill Weronke, the county highway commissioner, said the bridge has “lived its life expectancy” and is dangerous. “It’s a pretty crucial bridge in Portage County,” he said. He added it soon will be a shortcut to a state highway.
 
Coburn also criticized a $3.4 million Florida Department of Transportation project for an “eco-passage” — an underground wildlife road crossing for turtles and other wildlife in Lake Jackson, Fla., along U.S. 27.
 
“Why did the turtle cross the road? To get to the other side of a stimulus project,” the Coburn report says.
 
Josh Boan, the Florida Transportation Department’s natural resources manager, said a large number of turtles and other wildlife are killed in the area. In addition to protecting wildlife, he said the project is needed for safety: turtles hit by vehicles can become flying projectiles.
 
The project north of Tallahassee is to begin in September.
 
An administration spokesman said the stimulus program already is a great success.
 
Ed DeSeve, senior adviser to the president for Recovery Act implementation, said, “We have approved more than 20,000 Recovery Act projects to get Americas economy moving again.
 
“With 20,000 projects approved, there are bound to be some mistakes. When we find them, we have been transparent about it, and worked on a bipartisan basis to shut them down immediately. Sen. Coburn’s report, however, is filled with inaccuracies, including criticisms of projects that have already been stopped, projects that never were approved, and some projects that are working quite well.”
 
Coburn also criticized:
 
–A Bureau of Land Management project to study the impact wind farms have on the sage grouse population in Oregon. The proposal calls for hiring people to tag sage grouse in areas where wind farms may be built, to help determine where turbines could be located.
 
–$1.5 million in stimulus money for a $5 million new wastewater treatment plant in Perkins, Okla., his home state. Coburn said the stimulus money came with strings that will increase the costs. With a new total cost of $7.2 million, the city will be forced to borrow money and, as a result, utility taxes have increased by 60 percent this year, the senator said.
 
–Grants and loans totaling $1.3 million to Solon Township in Leelanau County, Mich., to help pay for construction of a wastewater treatment plant. Local opposition killed the project. The money will now be used for a future treatment plant, for which there is no plan and questionable local support.
 
–Road signs costing $300 each, being placed at construction sites to alert motorists that the project is being paid for by the stimulus money. Transportation Department spokesman Jill Zuckman said each state decides whether to use stimulus money for signs, and the cost would vary in each state.
 
–A $3 million project to repair taxiways at Hanscom Field, Mass., which Coburn said is for corporate jets. Richard Walsh, a spokesman for the independent state agency that runs the airport, Massport, said only 18 percent of the traffic at the airport is for corporate jets. Most of the use, 70 percent cent, is for flight students, he said.
 
–Montana’s state-run liquor warehouse, to receive $2.2 million in stimulus cash to install skylights. The project is part of the $27.7 million the state has been awarded for energy programs.

Obama Again Uses the Word ‘Investment’ to Describe the Deficit Spending He Plans

via: cnsnews

(CNSNews.com) – When President Barack Obama gave a primetime press conference on March 19, he used the terms “invest” and “investment” 18 times to describe the deficit spending he wants the federal government to pursue under his budget plan.
 
In another primetime press conference last night, Obama again used the term “investment”  three times to describe the deficit spending while almost in the same breath decrying “overleveraged banks” and those who “maxed-out on credit cards.”

Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary defines “investment” as “the outlay of money usually for income or profit.”  It defines “invest” as committing money “in order to earn a financial return.”

Investing is something private individuals or companies do with their own money. What President Obama is talking about is borrowing money and having the government spend it now while relying on taxpayers to pay the interest on what amounts to the “maxed-out” credit card held by Uncle Sam.

Obama likened the trillions of dollars in new national debt he is planning to incur to a solid foundation for rebuilding our national economy.

“But, even as we clear away the wreckage of this recession, I’ve also said that we can’t go back to an economy that’s built on a pile of sand, on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards, on overleveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all,” said Obama.

“We have to lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that’s exactly what this budget begins to do,” he said.

“It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training, new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit,” he said.

Because the federal government is already running a deficit, all spending increases pursued by Obama must be covered with money the government will borrow while planning to charge future taxpayers for the interest on the borrowed money.

As long as the federal government remains in debt, federal taxpayers must continue paying interest on that debt year after year.  The higher the national debt, the more interest taxpayers will be forced to pay each year.

Meanwhile, the growing volume of tax revenue that must be dedicated each year to paying the growing interest on the federal government’s debt cannot be “invested” by private citizens and businesses to create jobs and grow the economy.
 
Last Month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that Obama’s budget proposal would massively increase the national debt.
 
“CBO has also analyzed the policy proposals outlined in the President’s preliminary budget request,” said CBO’s report. “Under those policies, the deficit would total $1.8 trillion (13.1 percent of GDP) in 2009 and $1.4 trillion (9.6 percent of GDP) in 2010. The cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 projection period would equal $9.3 trillion and would average 5.3 percent of GDP. Debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP in 2019.”

Like this story? Then sign up to receive cnsnews’ free daily E-Brief newsletter

CONGRESS SAYS: TIME TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE FOR ILLEGALS

[Complete nightmare]

Free health care provided to illegal aliens detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to be investigated and improved, some members of a congressional Homeland Security panel said on Tuesday, despite testimony that the number of detainee deaths is way down and that health screenings have saved lives.

Capt. Jose Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Public Health Service’s Division of Immigration Health Services, testified that each individual taken into ICE custody is given a verbal health screening and is tested for tuberculosis within 12 hours. Dental exams also are provided, and women ages 10 to 55 are given pregnancy tests at the initial health screening.

Individuals who are still in custody after 14 days are given a complete physical.

“The purpose of this hearing is to investigate the health care services that ICE provides individuals held in its custody at detention centers around the country and to discuss efforts that Department of Homeland Security will do to improve those services,”  said Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, at Tuesday’s hearing.

“Over the past several years there have been troubling media reports about detainee deaths that appear to have been preventable had the individuals in question been given appropriate and timely medical attention,” Price said. Continue reading . . .

SAN FRAN GRAN NAN SPEAKS OUT ON FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[She's happy to curb free speech under the guise of promoting "diversity."]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”

The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Sean Hannity Show, among many others.

House Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio broadcaster and one of Congress’ biggest opponents of the Fairness Doctrine — an FCC regulation removed in 1987 that forced broadcasters to grant equal airtime to opposing political viewpoints — told CNSNews.com that the amendment is a masked attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

The amendment, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and attached to a bill (S.160) that would grant Washington, D.C.,  a vote in the House of Representatives, was approved by the Senate last Thursday in a party line 57-41 vote.

When asked whether she supports Durbin’s amendment, Speaker Pelosi said, “Certainly, I support Mr. Durbin in most things.”

“Diversity in media ownership is very, very, important,” said Pelosi.

Minutes after the passage of the ‘Durbin amendment’ last Thursday a separate amendment that would ban the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, which was proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), was also attached to the same D.C. voting rights bill and passed by a vote of 87-11.

But Pence told CNSNews.com that Durbin’s amendment would mandate a “stealth Fairness Doctrine.” Continue reading . . .

Senators Debate Global Warming Policy Despite Global Cooling Evidence

Democratic senators told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that despite a recent study that shows global temperatures have been dropping since 2001 and that projects the globe will continue to cool for the next several decades, they think the United States should continue to push forward with aggressive action to curb climate change.

Two Republicans, however, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned that while some action is necessary, lawmakers must act in a deliberate and fiscally responsible manner.

The study, released on Jan. 28 by Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis, who are professors in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, found that the Earth has been cooling since 2001 and projected that due to “global variation” the climate would continue to cool for the next 20 to 30 years.

Democratic senators told CNSNews.com that despite new studies and reports of variations in global temperatures, the federal government should move quickly to implement policies because they believe the debate over global warming is over.

“I think there is a bipartisan consensus in the Senate that the science is in,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told CSNews.com when asked if the government should implement new policies to apparently combat global warming despite the new study. “This is a very real problem. Now the debate is on the remedies — but the science is in.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who participated in a “U.S. Climate Action” symposium — hosted by The Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Resources Institute, the Center for Global Development and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment on Tuesday — also dismissed the study’s findings and said she thinks the debate is settled.

“I don’t know what to make of them,” said Stabenow when asked about the study’s findings. “But climate change is not just about temperatures going up. It’s also about volatility. So, I don’t know.”

“But, overwhelmingly, scientists agree that the climate is becoming more volatile and that climate change is real,” she said.

Tsonis, the co-author of the study — which received national attention on Tuesday due to two large global warming rallies at the U.S. Capitol building — told CNSNews.com that his work indicated that temperatures had flattened and slightly decreased since 2001 and that, due to natural cycles, temperature would continue to decrease for several decades.

“The temperature has flattened and is actually going down,” Tsonis told CNSNews.com. “We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”

But Tsonis also said that neither he nor Swanson think their study undermines arguments for global warming caused by human activity.

“We are not saying there is not warming due to human activity,” Tsonis told CNSNews.com.  ‘We are saying that there are natural shifts on top of that. But, for now, it looks like it is going to cool.”

Tsonis said that currently the natural cycles, which occur in part because of the way oceans interact, are stronger than the influence human activity has on the environment. But when the earth begins to warm again in several decades, he said, the globe could be in trouble because natural warming and man-made warming will occur simultaneously

“At this point it [natural variation] at least balances, or may be stronger, than the human influence,” said Tsonis. “But if temperatures shift again as we believe they will, then warming will be dramatic. It will be natural warming on top of human warming.”

DeMint, however, who is also a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told CNSNews.com that while he thinks that Man should care for the environment, he thinks this can be accomplished without sacrificing the further health of the economy or Americans’ standard of living.

“I think we should do everything we can to clean our air and water but it makes absolutely no sense to add to the cost of energy in this country in the process,” DeMint told CNSNews.com. “If we look at the facts, there is no suggestion that we need to panic and do something that is going to further hurt our economy and the standard of living in our country.”

McCain, also a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told CNSNews.com that while he “respectfully” disagrees with those who would look at such a study and claim that the federal government does not need to act on global warning, he thinks appropriate measures can be taken without costing American taxpayers too much.

“Certainly not President Obama’s cap and trade policy because I believe we should address climate change — not trying to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue,” McCain told CNSNews.com when asked if he though the country should move forward with expensive climate change action in the light of such studies.

But Tsonis, and other scientists who research global warming often overstate its potential dangers, Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst in energy and the environment at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.

“If we have a cooling period before us, let’s take some additional time to push ahead in studies and research,” said Lieberman. “Let’s use that time to find out what is really happening instead of rushing forward with policy decisions that could damage our economy more than they help our environment.”

One of the world’s leading experts on climate change, Dr. William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, has lectured for several years that there has been some global warming over the last 100 years largely due to natural circulation changes in the oceans.

“But the world is not in a climate crisis as Vice President Gore would say,” Gray said a little over a year ago. “We have many other important problems in this world we have to work on. And this is a red herring item that we can’t do anything about anyways. If we vastly cut down on our fossil fuels it would be a drop in the bucket in terms of global temperature change. The Third World – India, China and so on – are going to keep burning these fossil fuels.”

SOTU – Sort Of

Article II Section 3: [The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Last night’s speech by President Obama was not an official State of the Union address (SOTU as those of us who live and work in Washington like to call it to confuse and confound those of you who do not) but, as Ed Rollins said in the pre-game show on CNN “I’ve been through about 40 of these speeches and whether this is an official State of the Union address or not, it is the most anticipated.”

Yesterday afternoon, I was on WSPD in Toledo, Ohio with Mullpal Brian Wilson. He asked me how I thought President Obama would do. I said he’d do great. He’s really good at this and he will hit it out of the park.

Here are my on-the-fly thoughts:

The President got off to a good start:

“We will rebuild, we will recover and the United States will emerge stronger than before.”

Sort of mindful of the “We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail” of George W. Bush’s post-9/11 speech in that same building.

I’m amazed how quickly I have accepted Barack Obama as our President. He looks like our President and he sounds like our President. I don’t think I ever accepted Jimmy Carter.

“It’s not about helping banks, its about helping people.” The President thought applause had buried the line, so he said it again. In the next paragraph he talked about Americans being able to “buy that car.” But without banks who is going to finance that car?

Nancy Pelosi needs to take a pill before the next SOTU. She’s Soooooo happy! She’s Sooooo excited! But, that outfit. Yikes! Thud Green.

Is the camera angle – from the Well of the House – typical? Am I being too sensitive about Pelosi looking for a way to make the President’s sermon as coming from the Mount?

“…plug-in hybrids which will run on batteries made in Korea.” I believe I made that exact point last week.

Barbara Boxer actually looked like she knew where she was. Chuck Schumer actually looked like he should have been somewhere else.

“I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” I don’t think that’s correct. As I remember (aided by Wikipedia) the first automobiles were produced in Germany by the Benz (think Mercedes Benz) corporation in 1888 – five years before the first cars were built in the U.S. by the Duryea Motor Wagon Company.

9:47 pm: I’m beginning to think that Obama can deliver a speech better than his staff can write a speech.

Rep. John Lewis of Georgia is sitting next to another Black Congressman. Someone call the Attorney General – they’re self-segregating!
“
We have identified more than two trillion dollars [in savings] over the next ten years” drew applause from the Congress, but wait’ll they see which of their favorite programs – which go to their favorite constituents and donors – get whacked.

“If your family earns less than $250,000 – a quarter of a million dollars – a year your taxes will not be increased by one dime.”

Joe Biden didn’t seem to think that the $250,000 limit before taxes are increased was such a swell idea. He clapped, but you could see him looking at the gallery to see if he could find Tom Daschle’s accountant.

9:59 pm: Longest applause of the night after the President thanked the members of the U.S. Armed Services.

“The United States of America does not torture; we can make that commitment here tonight.” We’ll see.

President’s story about the bank executive who shared his bonus with his employees. The Members applauded because they think they do that all the time. The difference is: He gave away his money. They give away our money.

And what about that business earlier poking bankers in the eye?
Health care reform this year. How? It’s the third week in February already. And we know how hard the Congress likes to work in August of odd-numbered years.

10:08 pm: “Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”

You can say he was long on ideas and short on details, but that’s the nature of these SOTU-type speeches.

I was right. He hit it out of the park.

Obama’s nominee for deputy AG ‘pro-obscenity,’ ‘pro-homosexual’

Conservative pro-family groups and attorneys are calling on senators to oppose the confirmation of President Obama’s pick for the second-in-command position at the Justice Department.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Thursday morning for David W. Ogden, who served as a top assistant under Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration and has held high legal posts with the Defense Department and at one of Washington, D.C.’s top law firms.

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council said even though Ogden may look good on paper, the reality is he would be “a horrible” deputy attorney general.

“This is a guy who has lobbied in the court system for just about every anti-family issue you could think of – everything from child pornography to children’s rights when it comes to abortion, to lobbying for gays in the military,” McClusky said.

Anti-pornography attorney Pat Trueman told CNSNews.com that Ogden has has been on a legal crusade, representing pornographers, abortionists and homosexual activists seeking to change military law.

“David Ogden is, from the pro-family perspective, the worst choice President Obama could make for this key position at the U.S. Department of Justice,” Trueman told CNSNews.com.

Brian Burch, president of Fidelis, a pro-life, pro-family advocacy organization, said Ogden has represented Playboy “in at least four different cases.”

“He’s represented Penthouse magazine, he represented the largest distributor of hardcore pornography, along with the ACLU and others,” Burch told CNSNews.com. Continue reading . . .