Monday, July 29, 2013

A New Progressive-Tea Party Alliance?

Momentum Builds Against N.S.A. Surveillance

WASHINGTON — The movement to crack down on government surveillance started with an odd couple from Michigan, Representatives Justin Amash, a young libertarian Republican known even to his friends as “chief wing nut,” and John Conyers Jr., an elder of the liberal left in his 25th House term.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, is part of the movement to crack down on government surveillance.

Readers’ Comments


But what began on the political fringes only a week ago has built a momentum that even critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the House.
The rapidly shifting politics were reflected clearly in the House on Wednesday, when a plan to defund the National Security Agency’s telephone data collection program fell just seven votes short of passage. Now, after initially signaling that they were comfortable with the scope of the N.S.A.’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet activities, but not their content, revealed last month by Edward J. Snowden, lawmakers are showing an increasing willingness to use legislation to curb those actions.
Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, have begun work on legislation in the House Judiciary Committee to significantly rein in N.S.A. telephone surveillance. Mr. Sensenbrenner said on Friday that he would have a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court.
“There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter here,” Ms. Lofgren said.
The sudden reconsideration of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism policy has taken much of Washington by surprise. As the revelations by Mr. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, were gaining attention in the news media, the White House and leaders in both parties stood united behind the programs he had unmasked. They were focused mostly on bringing the leaker to justice.
Backers of sweeping surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain control over the extent of any revisions. Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee met on Wednesday as the House deliberated to try to find accommodations to growing public misgivings about the programs, said the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.
Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat and longtime critic of the N.S.A. surveillance programs, said he had taken part in serious meetings to discuss changes.
Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the panel, said, “We’re talking through it right now.” He added, “There are a lot of ideas on the table, and it’s pretty obvious that we’ve got some uneasy folks.”
Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has assured House colleagues that an intelligence policy bill he plans to draft in mid-September will include new privacy safeguards.
Aides familiar with his efforts said the House Intelligence Committee was focusing on more transparency for the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees data gathering, including possibly declassifying that court’s orders, and changes to the way the surveillance data is stored. The legislation may order such data to be held by the telecommunications companies that produce them or by an independent entity, not the government.
Lawmakers say their votes to restrain the N.S.A. reflect a gut-level concern among voters about personal privacy.
“I represent a very reasonable district in suburban Philadelphia, and my constituents are expressing a growing concern on the sweeping amounts of data that the government is compiling,” said Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican who represents one of the few true swing districts left in the House and who voted on Wednesday to limit N.S.A. surveillance.
Votes from the likes of Mr. Fitzpatrick were not initially anticipated when Republican leaders chided reporters for their interest in legislation that they said would go nowhere. As the House slowly worked its way on Wednesday toward an evening vote to curb government surveillance, even proponents of the legislation jokingly predicted that only the “wing nuts” — the libertarians of the right, the most ardent liberals on the left — would support the measure.
Then Mr. Sensenbrenner, a Republican veteran and one of the primary authors of the post-Sept. 11Patriot Act, stepped to a microphone on the House floor. Never, he said, did he intend to allow the wholesale vacuuming up of domestic phone records, nor did his legislation envision that data dragnets would go beyond specific targets of terrorism investigations.
“The time has come to stop it, and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
He had not intended to speak, and when he did, he did not say much, just seven brief sentences.
“I was able to say what needed to be said in a minute,” he said Friday.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Roberts Stacks FISA With 86% GOP Hacks

Roberts’s Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court

WASHINGTON — The recent leaks about Government spying programs have focused attention on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its role in deciding how intrusive the  government can be in the name of national security. Less mentioned has been the person who has been quietly reshaping the secret court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
Jason Reed/Reuters
Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents.
Multimedia

Readers’ Comments


In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary.
Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials.
Though the two previous chief justices, Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, were conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts, their assignments to the surveillance court were more ideologically diverse, according to an analysis by The New York Times of a list of every judge who has served on the court since it was established in 1978.
According to the analysis, 66 percent of their selections were Republican appointees, and 39 percent once worked for the executive branch.
“Viewing this data, people with responsibility for national security ought to be very concerned about the impression and appearance, if not the reality, of bias — for favoring the executive branch in its applications for warrants and other action,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and one of several lawmakers who have sought to change the way the court’s judges are selected.
Mr. Blumenthal, for example, has proposed that each of the chief judges of the 12 major appeals courts select a district judge for the surveillance court; the chief justice would still pick the review panel that hears rare appeals of the court’s decisions, but six other Supreme Court justices would have to sign off. Another bill, introduced by Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, would give the president the power to nominate judges for the court, subject to Senate approval.
Chief Justice Roberts, through a Supreme Court spokeswoman, declined to comment.
The court’s complexion has changed at a time when its role has been expanding beyond what Congress envisioned when it established the court as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The idea then was that judges would review applications for wiretaps to make sure there was sufficient evidence that the F.B.I.’s target was a foreign terrorist or a spy.
But, increasingly in recent years, the court has produced lengthy rulings interpreting the meaning of surveillance laws and constitutional rights based on procedures devised not for complex legal analysis but for up-or-down approvals of secret wiretap applications. The rulings are classified and based on theories submitted by the Justice Department without the participation of any lawyers offering contrary arguments or appealing a ruling if the government wins.
The court “is becoming ever more important in American life as more and more surveillance comes under its review in this era of big data,” said Timothy Edgar, a civil liberties adviser for intelligence issues in both the Bush and Obama administrations. “If the court is seen as skewed or biased, politically or ideologically, it will lose credibility.”
At a public meeting this month, Judge James Robertson, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to the surveillance court in 2002 by Chief Justice Rehnquist and resigned from it in December 2005, offered an insider’s critique of how rapidly and recently the court’s role has changed. He said, for example, that during his time it was not engaged in developing a body of secret precedents interpreting what the law means.
“In my experience, there weren’t any opinions,” he said. “You approved a warrant application or you didn’t — period.”
The court began expanding its role when George W. Bush was president and its members were still assigned by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died in 2005. Midway through the Bush administration, the executive branch sought and obtained the court’s legal blessing to continue secret surveillance programs that had originally circumvented the FISA process.
The court’s power has also recently expanded in another way. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americans’ communications after they are picked up.
Second page

“That change, in my view, turned the FISA court into something like an administrative agency that makes rules for others to follow,” Judge Robertson said. “That’s not the bailiwick of judges. Judges don’t make policy.”
Multimedia

Readers’ Comments

For the most part, the surveillance court judges — who serve staggered seven-year terms and take turns coming to Washington for a week to handle its business — do not discuss their work, and their rulings are secret. But the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, have cast an unusual spotlight on them.
The first of the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden was atop-secret order to a Verizon subsidiary requiring it to turn over three months of calling records for all its customers. It was signed by Judge Roger Vinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who had previously achieved prominence in 2011 when he tried to strike down the entirety of President Obama’s health care law.
Chief Justice Roberts assigned Judge Vinson to the surveillance court in 2006, one of 12 Republican appointees, compared with 2 Democratic ones.
While the positions taken by individual judges on the court are classified, academic studies have shown that judges appointed by Republicans since Reagan have been more likely than their colleagues to rule in favor of the government in non-FISA cases over people claiming civil liberties violations. Even more important, according to some critics of the court, is the court’s increasing proportion of judges who have a background in the executive branch.
Senator Blumenthal, citing his own experience as a United States attorney and a state prosecutor, said judges who used to be executive branch lawyers were more likely to share a “get the bad guys” mind-set and defer to the Justice Department if executive branch officials told them that new surveillance powers were justified.
Steven G. Bradbury, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the second term of the Bush administration, argued that it made sense to put judges who were executive branch veterans on the court because they were already familiar with the issues. And he challenged the claim that they would be more deferential.
“When it comes to highly technical national security issues, I really think there is value in a judge being a former prosecutor or a former government lawyer who understands how the executive branch works,” he said, adding that such judges “will be familiar with the process and able to ask the tough questions and see where the weak points are.”
Either way, an executive branch background is increasingly common for the court.
When Judge Vinson’s term ended in May, for example, Chief Justice Roberts replaced him with Judge Michael W. Mosman, who was a federal prosecutor before becoming a judge.
Other current judges include Raymond J. Dearie, a United States attorney; Reggie B. Walton, a prosecutor who also worked on drug and crime issues for the White House; and F. Dennis Saylor IV, chief of staff in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. The only Democratic appointee, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, was also a prosecutor.
Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor, said having executive branch veterans — including what he called “law-and-order Democrats” — on the court carried advantages because they brought experience with security issues. But the downside, he argued, is that they may also be unduly accommodating to government requests.
“The further the court’s authority has expanded from where it was in 1978, the greater the need has been for independent-minded government skeptics on the court,” he said.
Chief justices have considerable leeway in choosing judges — the only requirement is that they ensure geographic diversity. In practice, according to people familiar with the court, they have been assisted in evaluating whom to select by the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The counselor to the chief justice and the surveillance court’s presiding judge also sometimes play a role. Judges sometimes volunteer for consideration, while chief justices and their advisers sometimes come up with their own ideas.
Generally, the people familiar with the court said, evaluations have been based on reputation, workload, willingness to undergo an intrusive background check, and experience in security issues. Judges have served an average of 15 years before being assigned to the surveillance court.
Chief Justice Roberts has dealt with a small circle. His past two choices to direct the judiciary’s administrative office have been Republican-appointed judges, Thomas F. Hogan and John D. Bates, whom he also appointed to the surveillance court.
Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, who has filed a bill that would let Congressional leaders pick eight of the court’s members, said it was time for the court to have a more diverse membership.
“They all seem to have some type of a pretty conservative bent,” he said. “I don’t think that is what the Congress envisioned when giving the chief justice that authority. Maybe they didn’t think about the ramifications of giving that much power to one person.”

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Early Vote on NSA Spying

A vote on Monday July 22 in the House Rules Committee made possible a vote in the full House later this week (probably Wednesday!) on Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to substantially curtail the NSA's domestic spying regime.

To make your voice heard right now, click here!

The Amash amendment will be offered during the debate on the "defense" appropriations bill, the whole of which should be rejected if possible and this amendment enacted separately.

According to the House Rules Committee, the Amash amendment "Ends authority for the blanket collection of records under the Patriot Act. Bars the NSA and other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act to collect records, including telephone call records, that pertain to persons who are not subject to an investigation under Section 215."

This is our first opportunity to reverse a very dangerous trend. Please join with RootsAction and our partner on this action Daily Kos in emailing your Congress Member right now!
Please forward this email widely to like-minded friends.
What Roots Action forgot to tell us. Rep. Amash is a Michigan Republican, supported by Tea Party members in Congress, and is also Palestinian-American.  Let's STOP NSA SNOOPING any way possible. - Bill Floyd

P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, and many others.


Saturday, July 20, 2013

Chamber of Commerce Buys Congress, Senate

he following is an excerpt from Shut the Chamber's new 28-page report, "Bagful of Cash: How the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Orchestrated a Corporate Takeover of Government." My goal when writing the report was to publish a one-stop-shop for everything relating to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's domination of all institutions of merit, from Congress to the courts, to the election cycles. This report also shows how the U.S. Chamber has invested millions of corporate dollars into opposing all legislation relating to healthcare, financial reform, closing corporate tax loopholes, and climate change. The report also highlights the U.S. Chamber's support of austerity, fracking, the Keystone XL pipeline, and mostly Republican pro-corporate candidates running for Congress. You can read the full report at bit.ly/bagfulofcash.
Part III: The Corporate Takeover
People seem to listen to you more when you've got a bagful of cash.
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, The New York Times
According to Donohue, the Chamber raises $5 million per week to keep its operations running. Most of this money, however, comes from billion-dollar corporations, not small businesses. The U.S. Chamber has spent $983 million on lobbying since 1998, and has already spent $16 million in 2013 according to the most recent quarterly reports. The most recent bills (see "Bills" tab) opposed by Chamber lobbyists included the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have secured financial parity between women and men in the workplace, and the Corporate Tax Fairness Act, which would have closed loopholes and exemptions often used by multinational corporations to avoid paying federal taxes on their U.S. profits. While ultimately unsuccessful, the Chamber did attempt to defeat a bill providing federal disaster relief to cities hit by Superstorm Sandy.
Roughly half of the U.S. Chamber's $140 million spent in 2008 came from just 45 anonymous donors. And in 2009, out of the whopping $150 million spent on lobbying, over half of that money came from the American Health Insurance Providers (AHIP), a lobbying group consisting of the top 5 biggest health insurers. The Chamber subsequently flooded airwaves with ads full of misleading statements about the Affordable Care Act, and sent armies of lobbyists to Congress to oppose the bill. Even though health care reform still passed, the Chamber spent $33.8 million attacking supporters of the legislation in those respective congressional districts, leading to a takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives by corporate-funded candidates. The momentum created by the Chamber's furious opposition to the Affordable Care Act essentially created a Chamber-endorsed House majority that has voted to repeal the act nearly 40 times.
The U.S. Chamber brags about consistently ranking #1 in lobbyist spending for several years in the last decade. In 2012, the Chamber spent $139,000,000 on influencing congressional outcomes, as seen in figure 3.3. To compare, the two largest labor unions - the AFL-CIO and the SEIU - spent just under a combined $6 million last year.
The U.S. Chamber also spent considerable sums fighting the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill in 2009/2010, influencing Congress to vote down or neuter the bill, which was aimed at strengthening financial regulations to prevent a crisis similar to the 2008 housing collapse and subsequent bailouts of the nation's biggest banks. The Chamber specifically came out with a laundry list of amendments aimed at removing all regulatory teeth from the bill, such as removing the derivatives regulations outlined in the Volcker Rule, leaving the leadership and budgeting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the mercy of a Congress which was largely installed with the help of the Chamber's financial support, and silencing Wall Street whistleblowers, among others. As recently as April 2013, Tom Donohue was on CNBC calling for the repeal of not-yet-written rules imposed on the financial institutions that decimated the world economy.
Dodd-Frank was written in a hurry and it was written in anger. And here we are three years later ... We're already putting extraordinary stress on every kind of financial institution in this country.
- U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's most heavily lobbied bill was in 2010, when they threw their full weight behind the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. The bill would have allowed for global entertainment companies to censor any online content at their discretion. Despite the opposition to the bill on the part of many powerful Silicon Valley tech companies who were members of the U.S. Chamber, the group's lobbyists pushed hard for its passage.
The Chamber's vast lobbying efforts have, at least indirectly, led to the early 2013 explosion at the fertilizer plant in West, Texas, which killed dozens of first responders and leveled the surrounding community. A 2009 bill aimed at strengthening safety standards at chemical and fertilizer plants like the one in West was labeled a "key vote" by the Chamber that year, and the group mobilized on behalf of fertilizer companies to successfully defeat additional safety regulations. The bill was defeated in the House, and wasn't even brought up for a vote in the Senate. The Chamber has never publicly apologized for spending millions to defeat legislation that could have potentially saved the community of West from the explosion. Thanks to the continued support of decreased regulation, the West fertilizer plant has been inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration just once since 1985.
U.S. Chamber CEO Tom Donohue has been one of the most outspoken proponents of austerity, and advocates regularly for the overhaul of Social Security and Medicare to become commoditized programs in which corporations can seize more profit. Tom Donohue's Chamber also backed President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security in 2005. Combining the Chamber's support for Social Security privatization and support for deregulating financial institutions, it isn't hard to imagine a much more dismal scenario in the 2008 financial crisis if Social Security funds had been plundered along with the housing market bubble burst.
The other side of the U.S. Chamber's pro-austerity coin is its vehement defense of corporate tax avoidance. Even though 32 corporations dodged enough federal income taxes to pay for the entire education budget (approximately $72 billion), the Chamber of Commerce successfully lobbied to defeat the Corporate Tax Fairness Act, which would have closed enough tax loopholes to generate approximately $70 billion in additional tax revenue every year. The contribution to federal tax revenues between payroll taxes paid by employees and income tax paid by corporations has flipped. From 1950-1960, corporations paid roughly $1.00 in income taxes to every $0.33 in payroll taxes paid by employees. Today, corporations are only paying approximately $0.07 cents in income tax to every $0.33 in payroll tax paid by employees. Essentially, the Chamber is using the budget gap to demand the gutting of earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare while lobbying to absolve its corporate members of its federal income tax obligations.
Tom Donohue has gone on record supporting the practice of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, as have many of the Chamber's state affiliates. Despite well-documented risks to community drinking water supplies, the Chamber alleges that fracking provides jobs. While that may be true, the Chamber has lobbied to defeat bills aimed at investing in alternative, renewable energy sources proven to generate far more jobs.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also used the jobs and domestic energy arguments in its support of the Keystone XL pipeline which would mine tar sands oil in Alberta, Canada, and pipe it 1,700 miles to Port Arthur, Texas. The pipeline's most optimistic predictions only credit it with creating 6,000 jobs over a two-year period, meaning 3,000 temporary jobs each year. And even though oil companies would get rich from the pipeline, none of the oil would actually be used in the U.S. as it has already been marked for export mostly to South American and European markets.
Current Chamber president Tom Donohue is on the board of directors for Union Pacific Railroad, which would be partially responsible for transporting tar sands oil by train to be refined in Texas should the Keystone XL pipeline never be built. Union Pacific haspaid Donohue more than $1.1 million since 1998 in retainers, and it has donated over $700,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce since 2004.
Despite repeated warnings from climate scientists like NASA's James Hansen, who said that tar sands oil would mean "game over for the climate," the Chamber has actually gone on record saying that climate change can be mitigated by humans adapting their anatomies to a warmer climate.
Humans have become less susceptible to the effects of heat due to a combination of adaptations, particularly air conditioning. The availability of air conditioning is expected to continue to increase ... Populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations.
In the John Roberts Supreme Court, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has anoverwhelming win rate of 70%, particularly in cases where it has first filed an amicus brief. During the duration of President Obama's first term, the Chamber was undefeated in Supreme Court rulings in which it was invested. The New York Times reported that the nation's highest court hasn't been this accommodating to major corporations since World War II, quietly stacking up small victories for them in a stream of 5-4 decisions.
The Chamber's lawyers successfully got the Supreme Court to make it harder for victims of corporate negligence to sue for damages, whether they are claimants in the BP oil spill or employees of corporations filing class-action lawsuits in cases of abuse. They recently ruled in favor of agribusiness giant Monsanto in a seed patent case against a farmer trying to save his seeds, ruling that Monsanto had the right to claim domain over the farmer's crops, since their genetically-modified seeds had cross-pollinated into the neighboring organic crops on the farmer's plot. Justice Clarence Thomas once worked as a corporate attorney for Monsanto. He did not recuse himself from the decision. He also didn't recuse himself when ruling against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite his wife's having launched a lobbying group opposed to the Affordable Care Act's implementation.
Perhaps the most notable case of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce winning a Supreme Court ruling where an amicus brief was filed was in their support of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in 2010. The Supreme Court's decision effectively reversed a century's worth of campaign laws, now allowing corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money from their vast treasuries on electioneering purposes. In the 2010 congressional midterm elections, 93% of the Chamber's contributions went to Republican candidates. Of the remaining money spent on 11 Democrat candidates, they were on non-candidate specific ads. The Chamber exclusively funded Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Though they endorsed West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, they didn't spend any money on his behalf. In the 2012 elections, the Chamber pledged to spend $50 million (but reported$33 million), ranking 8th in total outside money spent. Of the 50 House and Senate races in which the Chamber had spent money to support or oppose candidates, they lost 36 races. Among groups that don't identify their donors, the Chamber ranked second behind the Koch Industries-backed Americans for Prosperity.
Attempts to roll back the effects of Citizens United v. FEC are met with fierce opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While successfully lobbying to kill theDISCLOSE Act, which would have required groups spending money on elections to reveal their donors, the Chamber called the attempts to regulate corporate dominance of the election cycle an attack on free speech and democracy.
What's most in need of disclosure is the real purpose behind this bill. It's nothing more than a brazen attempt to tilt the playing field in favor of the incumbent party in this fall's elections, silence constitutionally protected speech, and abridge First Amendment rights.
- U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization that brings together corporate lobbyists with largely Republican state legislators. At annual ALEC retreats, lobbyists and legislators break off into task forces which collaboratively write "model bills" to maximize corporate profit. Model legislation aims to privatize public assets, lower corporate taxes, and repeal environmental regulations and workers' rights. The Chamber is a member of ALEC's Civil Justice Task Force, the Education Task Force, the International Relations Task Force, and the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force

Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at carl@rsnorg.org, and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Friday, July 19, 2013

NLRB Fully Staffed

1101 Banner

Quick Links
Local 1101 website
In This Issue
Senate Reaches Agreement...Clear the Way for Vote on NLRB Nominees
Obama makes new NLRB nominations
Senators Reach Agreement to Avert Fight Over Filibuster
Welcome to the CWA Local 1101 email list. Stay up-to-date on important union news and mobilization alerts.
Senate Reaches Agreement
Clear the Way for Vote on NLRB Nominees

Last night the Senate reached an agreement in which several presidential nominations, including those to the National Labor Relations Board, would be voted on, and in return Senator Reid agreed not to push for a vote to change the Senate filibuster rules. President Obama agreed to withdraw the two nominees to the NLRB who were recess appointments and to put forward two different nominees instead.  The Republicans agreed not to block the nominees

The full slate of NLRB nominees will be voted on by the next week.While the agreement avoids a meaningful and permanent change to the Senate filibuster rules, we will have a functioning NLRB this fall.

Thank to all of the members who responded and called their Senators. CWA led the way in this battle and it made a difference.  If we had not done so it is clear that that the big business interests in Washington would have been successful in preventing the appointment of a fully functioning NLRB and set labor back decades.

See the two articles below for more details.
Obama makes new NLRB nominations
David Jackson, USA Today

President Obama fulfilled his part of a Senate deal Tuesday to avoid major changes in the filibusterrules, making two new nominations to the National Labor Relations Board.

Obama put up Nancy Schiffer, associate general counsel at the AFL-CIO, and Kent Hirozawa, chief counsel to NLRB chairman Mark Pearce.
They replace nominees Richard Griffin and Sharon Block, whom Republicans had objected to because they were recess appointments.

Saying that the labor board "is responsible for enforcing protections that are fundamental to growing the economy and creating jobs from the middle class," Obama praised his new nominees and said: "I look forward to the agency continuing its work to promote better wages and conditions for all American workers."

Obama also praised the new Senate agreement, saying that "in the weeks ahead, I hope the Congress will build on this spirit of cooperation to advance other urgent middle-class priorities." He cited "the need to take action to pass common-sense immigration reform and keep interest rates on student loans low for families trying to afford a higher education."

The NLRB was at the center of a Senate dispute over the so-called "nuclear option," a proposal by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to make it easier for Obama appointees to get confirmed; Republicans had threatened political retaliation if the rules were changed.

Click here to read the full article 
Senators Reach Agreement to Avert Fight Over Filibuster
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and JENNIFER STEINHAUER, New York Times

WASHINGTON - Senate leaders reached an agreement on Tuesday to preserve the filibuster in exchange for confirmation votes on President Obama's stalled nominees, ending, at least for now, months of partisan warfare that threatened the stability of several federal agencies and a generation of procedural traditions.
 
The deal, which paved the way for votes on seven nominees, was a classic Senate outcome: an inconclusive result that left both sides claiming some vindication. It was sealed with congratulations and awkward hugs among members who praised a private meeting Monday night attended by 98 senators for averting a parliamentary crisis.

The immediate result was the confirmation, in a 66 to 34 vote, of Richard Cordray as the first permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board after his nomination for a five-year term had languished for months. His approval, a decisive victory for frustrated Democrats who pushed to establish the agency in the aftermath of the financial crisis, will expand the powers of the new watchdog agency, allowing it to move forward with plans to regulate a variety of consumer lending programs.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who as the majority leader had forced the agreement by threatening to upend filibuster rules, said he believed the tussle had not only cleared the way for the approval of Mr. Cordray and others but had also changed the environment in the Senate for the better.
"This must be a new normal," Mr. Reid said after the Senate allowed consideration of Mr. Cordray. "Qualified executive nominees must not be blocked on procedural supermajority votes."

Any new Senate spirit will be severely tested in the weeks ahead as the chamber moves toward the politically charged nominations of a series of federal appeals court judges as well as a nominee for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a position tied closely to the immigration legislation sought by Mr. Obama.

Unlike a 2005 agreement on judges that limited filibusters to "extraordinary circumstances," the new deal did not put in place any framework for restricting such procedural tactics in the future or address the larger question of how to unclog the Senate.

The deal began to take shape during late-night talks on Monday between Democrats and a Republican, John McCain of Arizona, who appeared to bypass his own leadership. They ended with early-morning commitments in the Senate gym.

A clear winner was Mr. Obama, who gained a functioning consumer agency created on his watch, resurrected a defunct labor board and secured confirmation of a new E.P.A. chief and a disputed labor secretary. The Senate will also vote Wednesday to confirm Fred P. Hochberg to a new term at the helm of the Export-Import Bank.

Democrats withdrew two nominees for the National Labor Relations Board whom the president had appointed during a Senate recess.

On Tuesday Mr. Obama nominated as replacements Nancy Schiffer and Kent Hirozawa. Ms. Schiffer retired last year as an associate general counsel at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and Mr. Hirozawa is the chief counsel to the board's chairman.
Most important to Republicans, Mr. Reid dropped his plan to change Senate rules to limit the filibuster - for now.

Click here to read the full article
CWA Local 1101 
275 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10001