by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

“In a September 2006 peer-reviewed study conducted by the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program, of 9,550 World Trade Center responders, almost 70 percent had a new or worsened respiratory symptom that developed during or after their time working at Ground Zero. Furthermore, another study documented that, on average, a New York City firefighter who responded to the World Trade Center has experienced a loss of 12 years of lung capacity…. The pain and suffering of the living victims of 9/11 is real and cannot be ignored. We, as a nation, must do more,” stated Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Today at a joint subcommittee hearing under the House Judiciary Committee, witnesses testified and spoke in support of H.R. 847, the “James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009.” Under the Act, responders, area residents, workers, and students who were exposed to the catastrophe of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11 would be provided comprehensive medical treatment. It would also reopen the Victim Compensation Fund so that people can be compensated for their economic losses.

Barbara Burnette who is a former New York City Police Detective retired from the force after 18.5 years of service due to injuries she developed while working for 23 days in total at the World Trade Center site. Burnette was not provided with any respirator or other protection for her lungs and throat and now has been diagnosed with interstitial lung disease, more specifically, hypersensitivity pneumonitis with fibrosis in her lungs. During the time the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 was in mode, Burnette was not sick and the fund was closed to all applicants in December 2003. “Along with thousands of other rescue, recovery and construction workers, I have filed an individual lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, seeking redress for my respiratory injuries…. My case is now in its fourth year. It has been a long road, and I can’t tell you that I can see an end,” she said.

Over 2,000 rescue workers were compensated with funds from the Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 at a cost to the taxpayer of about $1 billion of the $7 billion spent, stated Kenneth R. Feinberg, the former Special Master of the Federal September 11th Compensation Fund of 2001. “I had enough problems determining eligibility and compensating 5,300 people back in 2001. Whether or not a fund like this should be reopened and the eligibility criteria expanded to include additional types of injury, that is up to the Congress to decide…. It is really an interesting dilemma for the Congress to consider whether it is appropriate to deal with this unfairness of not compensating some of these rescue workers,” expressed Feinberg.

James Melius, an MD and Administrator for the New York State Laborers’ Health and Safety Trust Fund said that the New York State Workers’ Compensation system is difficult to navigate through and is even worse for World Trade Center related illnesses. “The difficulties there are that these are complicated conditions. Our knowledge of them is evolving over time. We don’t know the prognosis for people. It’s more difficult to provide a proper assessment,” concluded Melius. According to information given by Melius, in New York City, uniformed services workers are, for the most part, not covered under the N.Y.S. Workers’ Compensation system but rather have a line of duty disability retirement system managed by New York City. So if a fire fighter, police officer, or other uniformed worker can no longer perform their duties because of an injury or illness incurred on the job, they can apply for disability retirement which allows them to leave with significant retirement benefits, but if a work-related illness becomes apparent after retirement, no additional benefits, including medical care, are provided.

“In the nearly eight years after 9/11, we have done enough talking. Now it is time to pass H.R. 847, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act,” concluded Nadler.

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

“All I want to do is except these petitions, welcome you, advise you that the Department of Justice has an investigation going on surrounding activities in Maricopa County and guess what, your not the only ones that have a sheriff that needs to be investigated in this country.” said Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) at a press conference to present a petition of more than 38,000 signatures calling on the Department of Justice and Homeland Security to investigate Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s alleged civil rights abuses.

Arpaio has 2,700 lawsuits filed against him and this month the House Judiciary Committee called for the Justice Department to conduct a federal investigation on Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s enforcement tactics.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) expressed that the sheriff’s tactics are examples of police power and are a violation of federal law. Nadler said, “In 2009, in the United States, we simply cannot tolerate such patterns of discrimination and denial of due process. Sheriff Arpaio’s malicious and vigilante practices are not immigration enforcement.” stated Nadler.

“We carry the burden of being stuck with this man but it is not an Arizona problem, this is a national disgrace…It can’t be tolerated.” said Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). Grijalva said he never supported the 287(g) program which trains local officers to enforce immigration law. “Put it in the wrong hands, it becomes abusive, discriminatory, and breaks the law and that’s what happened here…That particular program, the worst case scenario was in front of you and that Sheriff Arpaio.” he said.

Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said that the 287(g) program is the Bush Administration’s failed experiment to outsource federal responsibility and expressed that the change we all voted for last November will soon bring order to the broken immigration system. “We must turn the page and we must together restore the nation’s promise for life, liberty and for the pursuit of happiness for all.” concluded Alvarado.

Billy Corgan, vocalist and guitarist of the music group Smashing Pumpkins, spoke today before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of musicFIRST, a coalition of musicians pushing for compensation when their sound recordings are broadcasted. As the law stands, the song writer receives compensation when it is played on AM/FM radio, but the performer does not. Corgan argued, “The decision behind this long-held inequity stems back to 1909 when radio was in its infancy… the old-fashioned radio business has held onto this exemption for over 80 years — a law made in a bygone era for a set of reasons long past. This landmark exemption however stripped performers of their right to a free market evaluation of the value of their recorded works.”

The committee was split on the issue. Chairman Congressman John Conyers (D- MI) spoke strongly in support bill HR 848 which would legally mandate artist compensation for radio broadcasts. He pointed out that only four developed nations in the world do not pay musicians: The US, Iran, North Korea, and China. This, he stated, is not something we should be proud of. He predicted that sooner or later, HR 848 will become a law, and “the sooner, the better.”

However, dissenting views were expressed by other members of the committee. Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) pointed out how radio stations have seen steep decline in revenue during the current economic downturn, and the forecast is that the situation will only get worse. Goodlatte stated that it would be detrimental to apply another fee to small radio stations, in fact, this bill may be “the last straw” which causes small stations to close.

The core of the debate came down to which side receives unfair benefits in this situation; Whether musicians benefit from promotion due to radio play, or radio stations benefit in terms of listenership from playing music. Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R- TX) stated his proposition, “What I propose is that both parties agree to have a third-party entity conduct an objective study of the economic impact of royalty payments on performing artists and radio stations. Stakeholders would offer issues to be evaluated. And at least there will be some quantitative analysis to help mold legislation.”

Senators Leahy (D-Vt.) and Hatch (R-Utah), along with Congressmen Conyers (D-Mich.) and Smith (R-Tex.), today announced the introduction of major patent reform legislation in both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been working on patent reform for the last 4 years, and in the last Congress the House was able to pass the legislation, while it stalled in the Senate. The Congressmen today all expressed hope that the legislation would become law this time around, though all admitted there were major issues to be worked out.

Last time the Senate took up the bill, debate deadlocked over how to reform damage calculations and the handling of inequitable conduct, which occurs when a party tries to enforce a patent it obtained without being completely honest with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. While these disagreements are large, all parties today expressed hope. Senator Leahy, asked what had changed since the last time the Senate took up the bill, responded that there is “urgency” to get the bill through. The Senators and Congressmen linked the bill to the economic downturn, saying that reforms were important to improving the economy.

The bill as introduced picks up where discussions left off last time. It includes several major changes, including switching the U.S. to a first-to-file system from a first-to-invent system, creating a post-grant opposition system to allow challenges to patents within 12 months after they have been issued, and eliminating the publication of pending patent claims. Further, it streamlines many of the forms and procedures in the patent application process.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy said that hearings on the new bill will begin next week. Because the bill stalled in the Senate last time, the House Judiciary Committee is waiting for Senate action before bringing the bill up for consideration.

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

“The problem of midnight rules is not a new one, but the practice is prone to abuse and undercuts our democratic process.” said Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing today titled ” Midnight Rulemaking: Shedding Some Light” Congressman Nadler expressed why he reintroduced the Midnight Rule Act, H.R. 34. “It would allow incoming Agency heads to prevent rules adopted within the last three months of the previous Administration from going into effect. ” he said. Congressman Nadler stated “These midnight rules adopted by the Bush Administration will, among other things, curtail access to family planning services, and even to information about reproductive health options… These midnight rules allow the Administration to extend its policies well into the new Administration despite the fact that the voters have voted to move in a new direction.” Congressman Nadler also said that the Midnight Rule Act would give the new Administration the opportunity to examine and review the last minute handiwork of its predecessor.

Gary Bass, executive director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog organization said that all of these regulations have huge impact on the public. “All these rules were just horrible… This is the kind of thing that has to change in our government… This is what Congress and the Obama Administration are left to deal with.” he said.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said “Let’s not spend our time bashing the Bush Administration for doing less of what all recent administrations have done. Presidents are elected for four years, and unless we are to craft a prohibition on all regulatory activity during a second term, we should use this hearing as an opportunity to begin to build upon the improvements of previous administrations… Because midnight regulations are just one symptom of a dysfunctional and outdated administrative law system, governed by the 62-year-old Administrative Procedure Act.”

Multiple Congressmen expressed frustration at the inefficacy of FBI oversight as currently carried out by the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing today. FBI Director Robert Mueller was the sole witness. Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) opened the session complaining in an exasperated tone that the committee had not yet received a response to a September 5 letter asking about “the FBI’s anthrax investigation, disturbing revelations about the Bureau’s improper collection of information on reporters, the FBI’s approach to this country’s mortgage fraud crisis, and the expanded investigative and intelligence gathering powers resulting from the proposed Attorney General Guidelines concerning the FBI’s domestic operations.”

Conyers and other congressmen elaborated in questions about why they wanted the Attorney General Guidelines (set to be made public in a few weeks), which Mueller said were still under review but which would unify the FBI’s standards for starting investigations over different types of investigations. For example, the standards for when to open a criminal investigation are different from those used for national security investigations, and it is hoped that the new guidelines would make standards easier to follow. Congressman Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a former assistant U.S. Attorney, questioned Mueller about whether the new standards for opening an investigation would be lower than the standards police use for when they are allowed to stop and question a person (set out in the Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court decision of 1968). Mueller resisted the comparison, but Davis pointed out that the investigative activities carried out by the FBI are similar to those used by police. Mueller finally admitted that the standard has a lower threshold, so investigations could be opened without having reasonable suspicion based on “specific and articulable facts” that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) expressed frustration at the committee’s policy of allowing each congressman only 5 minutes for asking questions; “this format doesn’t work,” he said, pointing out that it was impossible to get deep into any issue in that time. He suggested the FBI could have experts in particular areas come testify, and on a more frequent basis than Director Mueller does. Mueller responded by saying that the committee will always be frustrated regardless of administration, as answers to questions must be vetted before being sent back. He also offered to come up to the hill at any time for briefings or discussions.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) asked Director Mueller about allegations that voters will be challenged at polling places if their homes have been foreclosed on. Mueller said he had not heard about that particular plan. He said the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division would investigate any such issue, though Mueller was unable to name the head of that division without the help of an aide. Mueller promised to follow up on making sure the Civil Rights Division knew about the problem, and Chairman Conyers assured Waters that Civil Rights Division head Grace Chung Becker would be testifying before the committee soon.

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations,” Bruce Fein, Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, said that many high crimes and misdemeanors were committed under the Bush Administration. He said that the executive branch “destroyed the Constitution” and the order of checks and balances that it supported. Fein explained that a claim of fighting terrorism can be used to arrest anyone without question and flout any restriction on gathering foreign intelligence. This means that the president can kidnap or detain anyone he thinks necessary, and open mail and burglarize homes if he thinks it necessary — a very “frightening power” according to Fein. Fein also said that “short of impeachment,” there is nothing Congress can do to punish the Bush Administration. (more…)

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties met for a third time to discuss interrogation tactics authorized for Guantanamo Bay prison detainees and whether these tactics constituted torture. Committee member Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the Subcommittee( D-Ny.) presided over the hearing and said that the morals of the U.S. have been “besmirched” by techniques used by interrogators at Guantanamo. He said the more he learns about these techniques and the secretive way they were authorized, the more appalled he becomes. The witnesses included John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and David Addington, Chief of Staff to the Vice President.

Yoo deflected a number of specific questions regarding his involvement with the creation of guidelines for interrogation techniques, specifically his involvement with the Bybee memo of 2008, which some committee members believed he was significantly involved in. He said that he was not at liberty to discuss certain issues because he was bound both by attorney/client privilege and the inability to reveal classified information. Yoo said that neither Congress nor the judicial system had provided guidelines which defined torture or acceptable interrogation techniques. He said that because of that he had no template to draw from while making the regulations for interrogation and the definitions of torture. He fell under immediate criticism from members of the committee for not consulting with the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees in 2002, who were Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Congressmen James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.).

Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, showed his obvious frustration when both Yoo and Addington tried to evade his questions. He raised his tone of voice and interrupted the witnesses multiple times. He was not the only one to express frustration; Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) also raised his voice a number of times and demanded straight answers from the witnesses.

At the House Judiciary Committee FBI Oversight Full Committee hearing on the FBI, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), says [to FBI Director Robert Mueller] can every member of Congress assume they can be broken into, like Jefferson? Mueller says that Jefferson wasn’t broken into, it was the execution of a search warrant. Conyers says, so that’s a yes? We can get busted too? Mueller there is an intervening circuit court opinion that requires them to follow protocols although he isn’t clear what the protocols are. We’re very sensitive, he says, to the debate clause and the debate opinion. Conyers says, “I’m glad you’re sensitive, we are too.” (1:12)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

At the House Judiciary Committee FBI Oversight Full Committee hearing on the FBI, FBI Director Robert Mueller says [in regards to child pornography] it’s important to have access to the records, and having records retention of ISPs would be helpful in creating a historical basis with which to make a case against child predators. (0:22)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download