|
Boston Globe Staff - March 30, 2006
Senate OK's new rules on lobbyists
But some say measure should be tougher
By Rick Klein|
WASHINGTON -- The Senate overwhelmingly approved long-stalled legislation to tighten internal ethics rules and to impose new restrictions on lobbyists yesterday, including a ban on lawmakers accepting gifts and meals from registered lobbyists.
But the measure stops short of the strongest steps that independent observers say Congress needs to effectively crack down on the types of abuses exposed by the embarrassing public corruption scandal surrounding disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was sentenced to 70 months in prison yesterday, and the million-dollar bribery conviction of Randy ''Duke" Cunningham, a former GOP representative from California.
The fact that the Senate bill didn't go further, critics say, suggests the early momentum for sweeping changes in how Congress and lobbyists interact gradually vanished, leaving intact many of the institutional problems that led to the scandals.
The bill allows lawmakers to take flights on private corporate jets and accept free trips paid for by interest groups, though the Senate Ethics Committee would have to approve such excursions in advance. Senators also decisively rejected a proposal for an independent agency to investigate allegations of ethics violations, a move that lets lawmakers continue to police themselves.
''Given that Mr. Abramoff got five years in the pokey today, the notion that this is the best we can do I think doesn't make sense," said Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who led his party's negotiations on overhauling lobbying and ethics rules but voted against the final bill. ''It doesn't address enforcement. It doesn't address travel abuses."
''It's very weak," added Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who also worked to craft a tougher bill and voted no. He wanted the measure to crack down on the practice of ''earmarking" -- where lawmakers can insert special projects at the request of lobbyists -- and said an independent Office of Public Integrity is crucial to any meaningful overhaul.
Before the Senate bill becomes law, the House of Representatives has to pass it and President Bush must sign it. But if the bill stalls in the House, the Senate can take the same steps in the bill by making changes to Senate rules.
The Senate bill requires lobbyists to file quarterly reports of their activities instead of twice a year, and those reports would be posted on an accessible Internet database. The measure would also force former lawmakers to wait two years after leaving office -- double the current period -- before they can become lobbyists, and it ends secret ''holds" senators now use to anonymously stop bills or nominations.
The bill passed, 90 to 8, with five Republicans and three Democrats voting no. Massachusetts' senators came down on opposite sides: John F. Kerry voted no, and Edward M. Kennedy voted yes…
The Senate action occurred hours after a federal judge sentenced Abramoff to prison for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with the purchase of a Florida gambling boat company. Those charges are not directly related to Abramoff's guilty pleas on charges of conspiracy to corrupt public officials on Capitol Hill, federal tax evasion, and mail fraud -- criminal charges for which the once-powerful lobbyist faces as many as 30 years in prison.
It was that scandal -- which uncovered a vast web of corruption surrounding Abramoff, several members of Congress, and a range of former congressional aides -- that shot overhauling ethics and lobbying rules to the top of the legislative agenda in Washington early this year.
That sense of urgency faded, however, as lawmakers grappled with the details of the legislation and became sidetracked on other matters, such as the Dubai ports deal and overhauling immigration. Yesterday's Senate vote broke that logjam, albeit with a bill that was significantly watered down from the type of legislation that House and Senate leaders once promised……
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/30/senate_oks_new_rules_on_lobbyists/
What's in the Senate's Lobby Reform Bill?
On March 29, 2006, the Senate passed - by an unsurprisingly huge margin - a bill called the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. The vote was 90-8, with the opposition coming for the most part from senators who felt the legislation did not go far enough (McCain, Obama, Kerry, Feingold, Graham, Coburn). Senators DeMint and Inhofe also voted against final passage.
What's in this bill?
- Lobbyists will be banned from purchasing gifts and meals for members of Congress.
- Lobbyists will be required to submit quarterly reports (rather than biannual ones) about their work, which will then be made publicly available. Lobbyists will also need to submit an annual report detailing their campaign contributions to candidates for federal office and to political parties. All travel arranged for legislators will also require disclosure.
- Senators will need to get prior approval from the Ethics Committee to go on any privately-funded trips [think of this as a sort of permission slip]. More disclosure requirements on this one, including the names of other passengers on board if a private aircraft is used as well as who paid for what.
- Former members of Congress and top executive branch officials will be banned from lobbying Congress for two years, rather than the current one year. Top Congressional aides will be banned for a year from lobbying any legislators in the chamber where they had been employed.
- Members would be allowed to lodge a point of order against any earmark inserted into a spending bill at the conference committee stage; a 60-vote majority would have to agree to retain the earmark if a point of order is filed. If it's utilized, this will be an important tool for the budget hawks.
- An amendment passed on Monday ends the practice of "secret holds" on legislation or nominations. Sponsored by Senators Wyden and Grassley, this addition to the bill passed 84-13, and is probably one of the most important long-term victories for proponents of open government.
Perhaps more importantly, we should turn now to what's not in the bill, and why are opponents already saying it doesn't go far enough?
- The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Feingold to clarify the ban on lobbyist gifts; he wanted to keep corporate execs from picking up the check as well. That amendment was tabled by a vote of 68-30.
- Also rejected was the Collins-Lieberman-McCain plan to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity, an outside watchdog body to monitor and govern ethics violations. That failed 30-67.
- Some amendments from Senator McCain, including one that would force lawmakers using private jets to pay charter prices rather than commercial prices, were blocked from consideration.
- Aside from the point of order provision governing a narrow portion of the earmark spectrum, no provisions were included to ban or limit earmarking.
Reuters – March 26, 2006
Justice Scalia slams detainee rights
By Alister Bull
WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights and called European concerns over the issue hypocritical, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.
The comments, which Newsweek said were recorded at a private appearance by Scalia in Switzerland on March 8, emerge before a Supreme Court hearing this week on a legal challenge by a Guantanamo prisoner against U.S. military tribunals.
"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiburg, according to Newsweek. "Give me a break."
Ethics experts said the impression that Scalia had already made up his mind before the hearing should mean that he will voluntarily drop out of the proceedings. However, Newsweek said he did not refer specifically to this week's case.
"He should remove himself when there is a reasonable doubt of his impartiality," said Father Robert Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University and long-standing human rights campaigner, who teaches judicial ethics. "It should logically be a reason for his recusal but I don't think he'll do it ... he's so stubborn" said Drinan.
Scalia caused an outcry in 2004 for refusing to recuse himself from an energy policy case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, following the disclosure that they had been on a duck-hunting trip together the year before.
Scalia, asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have protections under international conventions, gave the suggestion short shrift.
'IT'S CRAZY': "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy," he said. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.
Newsweek said it had reviewed a recording of the talk. It said Scalia added that he was "astounded" at "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to the Guantanamo prison.
Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, accused of being Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, present oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday to challenge U.S. President George W. Bush's authority to try prisoners before military tribunals.
Chief Justice John Roberts has recused himself from the hearing because he ruled on the case while he was on a federal appeals court. Scalia has previously recused himself from a case -- one involving the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag -- after making public remarks on it…..
The Hamdan case is considered an important test of the administration's policy in the war on terrorism. The tribunals, formally called military commissions, were authorized by Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks and have been criticized by human rights groups as being fundamentally unfair.
There are about 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
The administration's argument was based on a law signed by Bush on Dec. 30 that limits the ability of Guantanamo prisoners caught in the president's war on terrorism to challenge their detention in federal courts.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26392292.htm
Public Opinion Online – March 28, 2006
Wilson forum addresses negative perceptions of Islam
By LINWOOD OUTLAW III
Samia Malik has not experienced any difficulty practicing her Islamic religion since she migrated in 1975 to the United States from Madras, India, but she has received her share of prejudicial remarks.
Sometimes, she gets death threats by e-mail and suspicious stares from others whenever she goes to public places, including the grocery store. Often, she says, Americans' perceptions of Muslims are tainted by negative portrayals in the media, especially in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
Malik said she did not know a lot about Islam when she arrived in the United States, but she realized the necessity of educating herself. "When I came here, I knew I had to study Islam and study my religion. I had to teach my children about it. There's a lot of pressure put on us," Malik said. "A lot of people of Islamic religion have changed their name so they aren't identified as Muslim."
Malik, director of education for the Counsel on American Islamic Relations' Central Pennsylvania chapter, was among panelists on hand Monday at Wilson College's 43rd annual Orr Forum on Religion.
This year's forum, "Islam in America: Challenges and opportunities," sought to move beyond the conventional perception of Islam as a foreign phenomenon by examining the challenges and opportunities facing the community in the United States.
Since its inception in 1964, Wilson's Orr Forum reflects views of religious studies in America and has previously addressed topics such as AIDS, race relations, and the relationship of church and state.
Monday morning's opening panel was followed by four hour-long workshops discussing images of Muslims in American media, artwork of Islamic culture and the future of Muslims in America.
Malik said among such challenges as validating Islamic feminism and negotiating between local and global activism, disassociating Muslims from terrorist images remains the hardest task. "Not all Muslims and Arabs are terrorists, yet so many (media) images keep portraying Muslims in that light," Malik said.
Other challenges include dealing with the stereotype that all Muslims are affiliated with the Nation of Islam, said Jamillah Karim, assistant professor of religion at Spelman College, Atlanta.
"Malcolm X was a very popular figure in the '60s and '70s and he helped bring a lot of people to the Islamic movement. But a lot of people think the image of Islam is the Nation of Islam, and it's a misconception that needs to be corrected," Karim said.
Karim is working on a book titled "Race, Gender, and Islam: African American and South Asian Muslim Women in the American Ummah." Karim said if there was something positive to take from the Sept. 11 attacks, "it made people more interested in learning about Islam."
Another bothersome issue for Muslims, Malik said, is the belief that those promoting Christianity or converting from Islam will be tortured and publicly executed. This belief came to light with recent media attention surrounding Abdul Rahman.
Rahman faced trial and possible execution in Afghanistan after police found him with a Bible. United Nations officials said Rahman is seeking asylum in another country, according to The Associated Press.
"Muslims don't kill people for leaving the religion. About 99.9 percent of Islamic demonstrations and protests are peaceful. It's the 0.1 percent of violent incidents that attracts so much negative attention," Malik said. "We have some bad apples. But a lot of us, 95 percent of us, are good, too."
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/NEWS01/603280303/1002
|
