cook2712's Blog

A Democratic senator
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

 

on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee inadvertently explained why her colleagues have no intention of ending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling or increasing the areas open for exploration and production – no matter how popular the idea might be with gas prices soaring.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV's "Money and Politics" last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don't want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products.

Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum. And so there will be a supply side offered by the Democrats and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking, as I said about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."

In other words, no.

The point was underlined by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who said Democrats are not even permitting debate on legislation and amendments designed to increase the supply of oil and gasoline to U.S. consumers.

"Today, the appropriations markup that was going to include amendments that would open up the outer continental shelf and maybe even shale in Colorado and Utah was canceled," she told the same Bloomberg interviewer. "It wasn't postponed, it was canceled. So that indicates to me that the majority is not going to try to have an open debate, but I hope I'm wrong. If they have an open debate, and we're allowed to have amendments, and we have a balanced plan that includes production in all the sectors, then I believe we can meet this problem in a bipartisan way, and that's what we should be doing for America."

WND's Joseph Farah is spearheading a grassroots battle to flood Congress – and particularly the Democratic leadership – with e-mails, phone calls, letters and text messages demanding action that can lead the country in the direction of energy independence.

"Right now, that means lifting the moratorium," he says. "That's the first step. If we can't agree on that as Americans today, then we are in for a long period of national economic decline. If we can't push Congress to do the right thing with even a strong majority of Democrats behind us, then this country is simply no longer a place where the will of the people means anything."

Farah's goal is to force Congress to act in the next two months – before it adjourns for the year.

"There's an election coming up one month after that adjournment date and even the most entrenched incumbents know how sensitive this issue is," says Farah. "Now is the time to let them hear you."

Farah's plan is simple: "I want to bring Congress to its knees," he says. "I want to melt down their phones. I want to flood their e-mail boxes. I want to hold them as political hostages. The ransom demand is to unleash the free market to begin exploring and pumping domestic crude oil and getting it to market as fast as possible. We've got two months to make our voices heard. Let's make history by bringing this recalcitrant body of elitists into compliance with the will of the people and the rule of law."

After eagerly waiting for someone else to take the lead on demanding action of Congress, Farah came to the conclusion no one else was going to do it.

"We're running out of time," Farah says. "If we let these rascals, these scoundrels, leave town before they lift all their ridiculous bans and restrictions on drilling for domestic oil, this country is headed for a major recession. Even worse, we'll head into a new year and a new presidency with the Washington elite thinking they put one over on us again."

Farah says the only thing that can prevent the disaster of gasoline prices of $6, $7, even $8 a gallon in the near future is a general uprising of the American people.

Besides the call to action, Farah is also devoting the current issue of Whistleblower magazine, the monthly print complement to WND, to the critical topic of "the energy independence revolution."

"It's time to stop business as usual," he says. "Every day, you need to make some phone calls, you need to write some emails, you need to use Skype and text messages and even send some letters through the Post Office. This grass-roots movement has to build steadily for the next two months. We cannot allow Congress to adjourn without lifting the ban on drilling in ANWR, offshore and on public lands under which we know there are vast reserves of oil."

Farah says it's a national emergency and needs to be treated as such.

"I hope radio talk show hosts across the country will embrace this bipartisan, non-partisan movement," he says. "There is no question in my mind this is what the American people want. Now it's just time for them to impose their will on their elected representatives who, in their chauffeured limousines and taxpayer-supported travel, are hopelessly out of touch with their constituents, with people who are finding it difficult to make ends meet."

Farah says he is convinced Congress will act only if the people steamroll members into action. He points to the way the Dubai port deal and so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" were killed by popular uprisings in recent years.

"We can make this happen, again," he says. "But this time, we won't just be stopping something bad from happening. We will be doing something that is very good for the country – something that will improve the lives of all of us, something that will improve national security, something vital for the future of the nation."

Congress is set to adjourn in late September.

"I'm going to do everything in my power to push Congress into action in the next two months," Farah says. "I know I can't do it by myself. But I know if the American people get mobilized nothing can stop them. You have to let members of Congress know you are serious. You have to persuade them and their staffs they are not returning to Washington next year if they fail to act in America's interest before they leave town."

Before then, you can reach members of the House by calling 202-224-3121 or 202-225-1904. The official House website contains web pages for all members and includes email addresses for most.

You can reach members of the U.S. Senate by calling 202-225-6827. The official Senate website also contains web pages for all members and includes email address for some.

 
By Frosty Wooldridge
7-22-8  Citizenship constitutes the foundation of the United States of America. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.."   Today, after 20 years with the last three presidents, Americans watch their most precious value erode into meaninglessness. Does U.S. citizenship mean anything to this president, our Congress, our governors and our mayors of major cities.   After 9/11 decimated our national security blanket, our borders needed closing. Our immigration laws and visas needed immediate tightening as most of the bombers hailed from Saudi Arabia. All of them lied on their applications without fear of inspection. Yet, current policy allows endless immigration by Saudi nationals as well as many others from the Middle East. Has anything changed? Not!   Additionally, this president justifies his stance, "They do the jobs that Americans won't do." In other words, illegal aliens may cross our borders without inspection because they work jobs illegally against the interests of legal American citizens. Result: our working poor and middle class citizens must stand in unemployment lines.   Our northern and southern borders remain as wide open and vulnerable in July of 2008 as they did on September 10, 2001. Result: no value of individual American citizenship! Any number of American citizens may be the next victims of a 9/11 attack.   Our government, after 232 years of English as our national language, enacted E.O. 13166 (Bill Clinton) and supported by Bush, which gives any immigrant the right to have any government document translated into his/her language. This translation costs billions of your dollars. Result: immigrants continue speaking their foreign languages in our country which creates havoc in our schools, hospitals and courts.   Individual U.S. congressmen like Senator Teddy Kennedy fraudulently promoted the 1986 Immigration Amnesty for 4.3 million illegal aliens. He promised to enforce our borders so that such an amnesty would never occur again. Result: he enforced nothing, but allowed over 20 million illegal aliens into our country, which places all of us at greater risk as to rapes, drunk driving deaths, degraded wages, lost jobs, paying for anchor babies, medical and prison expenses. Not to mention the incredible amount of diseases invading our country through the bodies of unscreened migrants!   Officials in Mexico City last week announced the Aguila Azteca award to Kennedy, the highest honor the government can bestow on foreign dignitaries. Mexico hopes you don't recognize that Kennedy's honor addresses the fact that his enormous work for illegal alien migrants helped Mexico develop a subversive foreign force estimated at 12 to 15 million Mexican nationals within America that robs U.S. taxpayers of $346 billion annually per economist Edwin Rubenstein's report in www.thesocialcontract.com. Result: no mention that Kennedy's actions help illegal migrants transfer cash remittances totaling $80 billion out of our country annually. An estimated $24 billion reaches Mexico making it the second largest cash inflow besides oil.   U.S. Senator Barack Obama last week called our own federal immigration enforcement teams a bunch of 'terrorists'. He said our immigration system doesn't work. He failed to mention that he makes sure it doesn't work because he won't stand up to make it work. That's like saying a 2008 Corvette won't work because Obama refuses to start the engine. Obama said, "Immigration laws aren't working when companies hire immigrants (illegals) instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by immigration raids-when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing."   Perhaps Obama supports another 9/11 thrust upon our nation by ordering "Immigration, Customs and Enforcement" to stand down to watch illegals continue their 'reconquista' of American jobs, language and our culture. Obama trashed the same people that keep our nation safe from terrorists! He said nothing when U.S. Border Patrol agents Campeon and Ramos shot a drug runner in the butt, but then suffered when U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton tossed both agents into jail for a dozen years each. Result: U.S. citizens become victims of millions of lawbreakers that enjoy immunity from the law.   Mayors from Los Angeles to New York, promote and support sanctuary cities whereby illegal aliens enjoy immunity from prosecution and deportation. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supports numbers approaching four million illegal aliens with his sanctuary policy. While trash and garbage pile up in LA's streets, gangs run roughshod over police, schools collide with race riots as well as complete academic failure, hospitals give free service and prisons explode with illegals-Mayor Villaraigosa supports anarchy as his city sinks into third world chaos. Result: American citizens flee their communities as the value of their citizenship falls to level of a cockroach.   Not to be out done, Mayor Daley in Chicago allows over two million illegals to parade through his streets with total immunity. Recent reports show 80,000 Chicago illegals registered to vote, but won't show up at jury summons. Source: By Mark Burkhalter, For the Atlanta Journal- Constitution newspaper Published on: 07/15/08 http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/20
08/07/15/ votinged.html   http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm28.cfm Result: the most prized and responsible honor for a U.S. citizen, to vote in elections, must contend with illegal aliens usurping our voting booths and making fraudulent elections a normal aspect of our once thriving republic. Finally, both men running for president of the United States attended a La Raza conference last week.   Why would two U.S. Senators address a conference organized by La Raza, the most racist organization in the United States? Its main theme, "For the Spanish race, everything, anyone outside the race, nothing!" Additionally, it's main purpose remains to "reconquest" our four border states back into Mexico. Luis Gutierrez, one of the main organizers of La Raza, once said, "If need be, we must kill the white man." Gutierrez enjoys tenure at the University of Texas, Arlington. Why would McCain and Obama address an overtly racist organization? Answer: they do not value U.S. citizenship nor do they support anything Dr. Martin Luther King died for in the 1960s. Finally, half of American citizens fail to vote in national elections and less than 20 percent vote in local elections. A powerful and entrenched 'good ole' boys' network controls this nation. While Congress does not value our citizenship, fewer and fewer Americans exhibit much interest in their own responsibilities as citizens, either.   Then you wonder why our boys die in a war based on fraud, $700 billion annual trade deficit, millions of jobs outsourced, manufacturing base destroyed, $9.4 trillion federal debt, illegals overrun our communities, you must push one for English and your kids suffer exposure to drugs while our schools turn into academic chaos! Voting for McCain or Obama makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders! ## Bob Woodruff of ABC asked input from all citizens concerning the future of our planet. Go to www.earth2100.tv for a sobering reality check as to what we face and to what I have been writing about for the past 20 years. Our 'window' to change to a balanced population and non-polluting energy diminishes every day we ignore the symptoms manifesting all over America and the planet.     Final note: I am looking for thinkers, writers and advocates to add to my monthly "Master Mind Think Tank." In reality, our politicians foment the problems that they campaign to solve. They never solve them; thus we spiral into deeper national chaos. I need new ideas and new creative thinkers to help me bring our most pressing issues onto the front burner: overpopulation in America caused by ceaseless legal and illegal immigration. As you know, the recent PEW report shows immigration adding 100 million people to our country in 30 years. We need to stop it and we need to stop it now. Join me in saving our civilization. frostyw@juno.com   Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents "The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com   From: Frosty Wooldridge   This three minute interview with Adam Schrager on "Your Show" May 4, 2008, NBC Channel 9 News, addresses the ramifications of adding 120 million people to USA in 35 years and six million people to Colorado as to water shortages, air pollution, loss of farmland, energy costs and degradation of quality of life. In the interview, Frosty Wooldridge explains the ramifications of adding 120 million people to the USA in 35 years. He advances new concepts such as a "Colorado Carrying Capacity Policy"; "Colorado Environmental Impact Policy"; "Colorado Water Usage Policy"; "Colorado Sustainable Population Policy". Nationally, the USA needs a "National Sustainable Population Policy" to determine the carrying capacity of this nation for the short and long term. Wooldridge is available for interviews on radio and TV having interviewed on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX.

 A Book Review
By Frosty Wooldridge
7-16-8  Author Mark Krikorian casts an expansive net with his latest book:   The New Case Against Immigration - Both Legal And IllegalAmid this presidential campaign, perhaps the most critical in our nation's history, issues fly like California wild fires in a July heat wave--piling up against one another so as to make them almost indistinguishable-like so much charred countryside.   Issues that often make the most ink also remain the least important. As a veteran observer, it strikes me that never has our government been so out of the control of the electorate while our country spirals into anarchy. Few leaders look at root causes.   Krikorian brings electrifying clarity to consequences brought about by relentless mass immigration. He exposes this devastating problem in all its complexities. He focuses on immigration's dire consequences for the USA, which all start with our ignoring a cherished American first principle: Our government fails to live up to the basic Rule of Law set forth in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."     Krikorian builds his case while unfolding an avalanche of pertinent data to support his claim--as a mature civilization, we can no longer afford massive, unrelenting and endless legal or illegal immigration. Our cohesive civilization cannot survive the increasing drama of uninvited and unincorporated immigrants. Instead of our successful 232 year 'melting pot' concept, current immigrants create an incompatible 'salad bowl' of competing languages, rituals and antagonistic political agendas--counter to U.S. interests.   Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm supports Krikorian's contention, "We are the only country in history that deliberately changed its ethnic makeup, and history has few examples of 'diversity' creating a stable society."   Renowned Denver Post journalist Al Knight praised Krikorian's book, "Its treatment of immigration is light years removed from the shouting matches on televisionthis is not an angry book. It is not even an anti-immigration book. It coldly looks at how this nation's immigration policy affects every sector of our nation from education to national security."   Krikorian illustrates 'transnationalism' whereby immigrants do not invest in America, but keep one foot, as well as ear, in their former countries. Even Teddy Roosevelt said, "Dual citizenship is a self-evident absurdity." Krikorian depicts where Mexico, with 54 consulates within the U.S., methodically embeds an aggressive empire within the United States while imposing its language onto American schools, hospitals, banks and retail outlets. An astounding 12 to 15 million Mexican nationals live in America--over 10 million illegally. Their combined deleterious impact, according to economic analyst Edwin Rubenstein, costs America taxpayers $346 billion annually.   Mexico calls for abolition of America's borders, which, in turn, vanquishes America's primacy as a nation-state. If that happened, the onslaught of Mexico's poor would resemble a human stampede totaling endless millions. Why? Mexico expects to triple its population in this century from 104 million to 300 million!   The result? Krikorian quotes President Teddy Roosevelt, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns out Americans, and American nationality, not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."   Krikorian investigates visa fraud with troubling results, "When particular visa categories have been examined, the level of fraud has been stunning." Additionally, our border with Mexico remains a terrorist Interstate for easy entry. I vouch for that statement with my own experiences on the border for three of the last four years.   Contrast the financial figure that $4.5 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars annually subsidize foreign students working for degrees in our universities while our citizens cannot procure a loan for their own college educations. Further, massive legal and illegal immigration creates havoc in our schools as corroborated by Brian Williams at NBC News: "In Detroit, Michigan, only 24 percent of potential high school seniors graduate, with many of the big cities in the U.S. replicating those statistical footsteps."   And finally, Krikorian addresses the final equation causing America to lose its ability to remain a stable and sustainable population. Because of governmental policies forcing errant population growth, the U.S. expects an added 100 million people within 30 years.   "The bottom line is that immigration today is responsible for two thirds of population growth," Krikorian said. "First of all, the American people average two kids per family. They didn't ask for another 100 million people. Second, this artificial, politically induced population growth undermines modern quality-of-life goals we embrace-preservation of open spaces, environmental stewardship and protection of our national parks."   Finally, he proposes logical and humane methods for solving our immigration crisis. Krikorian sets forth "Seven Elements" that prove fair, viable and urgently needed. For this nation to continue artificially propelling itself toward the same consequences now manifesting in China, India and Mexico-may well prove a "Human Katrina" from which this nation will not recover.   I highly recommend this book for 535 members of Congress as well as the current and next president. I recommend it to every parent whose children face an overpopulated future. Through Krikorian's knowledge, the rational conclusion, after review of hundreds of researched documents, mandates an abrupt end to massive and unending legal and illegal immigration.     THE NEW CASE AGAINST IMMIGRATION: BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL   Author: Mark Krikorian

EVER WONDER HOW MUCH OF THIS IS GOING ON NOW?

 

 Note: In late 2005, Congress enacted the "conference" version of H.R. 2985, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, which repealed Title 2, Section 39 for Members of the Senate only. As of January 2006, House Members were still subject to the 'No Work, No Pay' law.

Many current or former Senators and Representatives appear to have taken illegal Congressional salary payments during the current Congress, prior to the October recess.

The chronically absent list is well-represented by candidates who ran for higher office, including those who ran for President or Vice President: Senators John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Congressmen Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Senate candidates Brad Carson (D-OK), Mac Collins (R-GA), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Pete Deutsch (D-FL), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Chris John (D-LA), Denise Majette (D-GA), George Nethercutt (R-WA), and Patrick Toomey (R-PA), who have served in the House during 2003 – 2004, also had numerous unexcused absences. In 2003 now-Kentucky Governor and former Representative Ernie Fletcher (R) missed 27 session days.

Federal law requires Members of Congress to forgo Congressional pay for days missed due to campaign appearances or other unexcused absences. In June 2003 National Taxpayers Union wrote to each of the six Presidential candidates serving in Congress to ask whether they planned "to voluntarily follow this law during your campaign." None of the candidates replied.

Here are the estimated salary overpayments made to each of the six Presidential and/or Vice Presidential candidates:

• Senator John Edwards was absent for every vote during 52 of the 115 days when the Senate cast floor votes in 2003. In 2004, Senator Edwards missed every vote during the months of July, September, and October – a total of 59 consecutive votes. Senator Edwards' 50 absent days in 2004 equal an estimated salary overpayment of $63,543.16.
  
• Representative Richard Gephardt was absent for every vote during 85 of the 109 days when the House cast floor votes in 2003. Gephardt compiled many streaks of consecutively missed votes, including all votes from April 10 to May 8, June 2 to June 24, September 9 to October 1, and October 20 to November 20, when he missed 93 votes in a row. In 2004 Gephardt was absent for 46 days. Representative Richard Gephardt's total estimated salary overpayment: $81,362.53.
  
• Senator Bob Graham's 41 absences in 2003 add up to an estimated salary overpayment of $25,269.53.
  
• Senator John Kerry was absent for every vote during 76 of the 115 days when the Senate cast floor votes in 2003. The Senator's longest streak of missed votes in 2003 ran from July 11 to September 9, when he missed 62 in a row. For 2004, Senator Kerry was absent for every vote during the months of July, September, and October – and compiled a total of 76 consecutive votes missed from June 23 through October 11. Kerry's absences for 2004 total 70 days. Senator John Kerry's estimated salary overpayment: $90,932.68.
  
• Representative Dennis Kucinich was absent for every vote during 28 days in 2004, but did not meet the study's missed-votes threshold for 2003. Representative Dennis Kucinich's estimated salary overpayment: $17,636.64.
  
• Senator Joseph Lieberman was absent for every vote during 63 of the 115 days when the Senate cast floor votes in 2003. Lieberman skipped 54 percent of all the votes. Notably, Lieberman was first elected to the Senate after criticizing the incumbent for missing too many votes. Lieberman's longest lineup of missed votes ran from July 10 to July 29, when he missed 43 votes. Senator Joseph Lieberman's estimated salary overpayment: $38,828.79.

All Members of Congress who are included in this report are noted in the table below:

Congress Member

*Denotes a Congress Member who ran for higher office

Days Missed 2003

Days Missed 2004

Final Total

Bell, Chris

 

13

$8,188.44

Campbell, Ben Nighthorse

 

11

$6,928.68

Carson, Brad*

 

19

$11,967.72

Collins, Mac*

 

18

$11,337.84

Conyers, John

17

 

$10,477.61

DeMint, James*

 

37

$23,305.56

Deutsch, Pete*

 

23

$14,487.24

Edwards, John*

52

50

$63,543.16

Fletcher, Ernie*

27

 

$16,640.91

Gephardt, Richard*

85

46

$81,362.53

Graham, Bob*

41

 

$25,269.53

Greenwood, Jim

 

14

$8,818.32

Gutierrez, Luis

19

23

$26,197.51

Hoeffel, Joseph*

 

14

$8,818.32

Isakson, Johnny*

 

15

$9,448.20

John, Chris*

 

18

$11,337.84

Kerry, John*

76

70

$90,932.68

Kucinich, Dennis*

 

28

$17,636.64

Lieberman, Joseph*

63

 

$38,828.79

Lipinski, William

 

18

$11,337.84

Majette, Denise*

 

22

$13,857.36

Meeks, Gregory

 

15

$9,448.20

Mollohan, Alan

 

15

$9,448.20

Nethercutt, George*

 

13

$8,188.44

Toomey, Patrick*

 

19

$11,967.72

The Law

According to 2 U.S. Code 39, "The Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives (upon certification by the Clerk of the House of Representatives), respectively, shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."

In 1981, and again in 1996, this provision in the law was amended in unimportant respects, thus reaffirming a Congressional belief in its continued legal vitality. It therefore seems indisputable that Section 39 is binding on all Members of Congress.

The candidates have a duty to comply with this law. The Code of Ethics for Government Service says, "Any Person in Government service should ... uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations ... and never be party to their evasion." The House Ethics Manual also notes that if a Member violates any "provision of statutory law, a Member or employee may also violate these provisions of the House rules and standards of conduct."

House Rule 23, clauses 1 and 2 state:

1.) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

2.) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.

Both House and Senate ethics rules contain strict prohibitions against the use of official resources for campaigns.

Paying Congress Members to miss work is unfair to other candidates who usually campaign without pay. If any of the other candidates worked for a corporation that gave a paid leave of absence for campaigning for President, the Federal Election Commission would impose a stiff fine for an illegal corporate contribution.

The records of the House show that in 1971 then-Congressman Edwards of Louisiana, someone not known for high ethical standards, took action to ensure that he was in compliance with this law when he did not attend House sessions during his campaign for Governor.

Methodology

We studied those Members of Congress who were absent for a high percentage of votes, over 15 percent, for 2003 and 2004. Each year's absences were studied independently; thus, in order for a Member to have absences noted for both 2003 and 2004, they would need to exceed the study's threshold each year.

If a lawmaker was present for even one floor vote during a session day, credit for full attendance that day was assumed. The study only counted absences if every floor vote was missed during a day.

We performed a computer search of the Congressional Record to determine whether any of the House candidates had received a leave of absence for any reason, even those not authorized by law. If a leave was granted, no salary overpayment was calculated. Senators' requests for leave are not stated in the Congressional Record.

We also inquired with the offices of each absent Senator and Representative to determine which, if any, days were for absences provided by the law. We updated our records to reflect any information from lawmakers who replied. Furthermore, we conducted independent research of online media sources for each lawmaker to ascertain whether illness or surgery may have accounted for any absences. Those lawmakers who still had more than 10 days of absences remaining after these examinations are included in this report.

To estimate the amount of salary to deduct for each day missed, we divided the 2003 annual Congressional salary of $154,700 by 251, since there are 261 weekdays per year, and 10 federal holidays. That calculation yields a Congressional salary of $616.33 per day. In 2004, a leap year with an added workday, an added holiday for Ronald Reagan's funeral, and a higher salary of $158,100, the per-day deduction was $629.88.

This is a conservative estimate of the overpayment. Others have suggested that the docking of congressional pay should be based on the number of session days. Such a calculation would yield a substantially higher overpayment estimate for each candidate. For example, under such a formula, Representative Gephardt's overpayment would have exceeded $122,000 in 2003.

Data citing missed votes that was used to perform the calculations was obtained from the respected Congressional Observer Publications (http://www.proaxis.com/cop/), a Congressional vote data service widely used by educational institutions and media outlets. Individual reports, detailing the dates on which a Member missed every vote, are available upon request.

[This report is available in PDF.]

 

Appendix

Legal Memorandum

This memorandum was written by attorney Bruce Fein.

Re: Responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to Enforce 2 U.S. Code 39 Requiring Salary Deductions for Absenteeism

Pursuant to 2 U.S. Code 39, Members of the House and Senate forfeit an amount of salary for each day of absenteeism not ascribable to "the sickness of himself or of some member of the family." The Section 39 deduction mandate seems clearly a binding law, as its evolution corroborates.

As initially enacted on August 16, 1856, the Section provided:
The Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the House, respectively shall deduct from the monthly payments of each Member the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such Member assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some Member of his family.

Its purpose was to insure a quorum to do business, as explained by its author, Rep. James L. Orr[1]:

The necessity for such a provision is imperious, as our experience at the present session fully attests. The House is composed of two hundred and thirty-four Members, and the number attending its sittings has been frequently less than one hundred and fifty—often times from seventy to one hundred absentees—and to the serious detriment of the public business, when the Committee of the Whole has been broken up, when considering the appropriation bills, for want of a quorum. If the House adopts the substitute, we shall, in the future, have a smaller number of absentees, and thereby cure a great and increasing evil.

Enforcement of the provision was to be through a Congressional honor code, as the following colloquy discloses[2]:

Mr. Orr. The provision is simply this: that when a Member goes to the Sergeant-at-Arms at the end of each month for his salary, he shall report to the Sergeant-at-Arms the number of days he has absented himself from the House.

Mr. Stanton. The Member?

Mr. Orr. The Member. If his absence has been caused by the sickness of himself or his family, then he is entitled to compensation; if from any other cause, a deduction is to be made for the absent time. A Member is not to be sworn. He answers upon his own conscience and honor.

In 1894, the provision was debated at length on the House floor[3] in the context of a chair ruling on a point of order. The Chair assumed that the statute was valid despite a long period of unenforcement. That conclusion accorded with the majority of the House Judiciary Committee. It found that the statute was still in force, and recommended a resolution directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce it. It does not appear that this resolution was actually adopted by the House, but the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms proceeded to enforce the statute and deductions were made from the pay of absent Members[4]. A provision reimbursing these deductions was stricken from an appropriation bill introduced in the subsequent Congress[5].

The enforcement of the provision thereafter has been erratic. According to Robert Luce's Legislative Assemblies[6], it fell into disuse until 1914 when deductions from Members' salaries were ordered, but Members were reimbursed by a unanimous vote in the subsequent session.

At present, Congressional pay officials withhold remuneration when Members voluntarily certify their absence. Mr. Edwards, for example, certified absenteeism to campaign for Governor of Louisiana in 1971 and accordingly was not paid for those days of the session he did not attend[7].

In 1975, the Senate inserted a provision in the fiscal year 1976 legislative branch appropriations bill that would have repealed Section 39, but it was deleted from the final version of the law. In 1981 and again in 1996, the section was amended in unimportant respects[8], thus reaffirming a Congressional belief in its continued legal vitality. It thus seems indisputable that Section 39 is binding on all Members of Congress.

An effort by a California taxpayer to compel Congressional enforcement of Section 39 was dismissed for want of standing in 1981 by U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams (N.D. Calif.). Williams observed that it would be "inappropriate for the courts to inquire into or supervise the attendance of members of a coordinate branch of government." In a similar 1972 suit, a federal judge had dismissed a suit seeking recovery of salaries and allowances paid several Members who were absent from Washington campaigning for the presidency.

In sum, Section 39 is legally binding on Members, even if enforcement by the House and Senate in lieu of the judiciary is required. And the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate are saddled with a special duty on that score.

Under 2 U.S. Code 48, the Speaker and the President are responsible for certifying the salary accounts of Representatives and Senators. To discharge that responsibility, the Speaker and the President must make some good faith inquiry into whether any salary deductions under Section 39 are in order. If no inquiry is made, then Section 48 would be an empty formality. Laws should be more than ornamental.

At present, it appears that salary certificates of Members seem to be routinely signed in willful ignorance of whether Section 39 obligates an absenteeism deduction.

PRETTY SWEET INCREASE FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT THE PRES !!

As of January 2008

President $400,000

Vice President $221,100

Speaker of the House $217,400

House Majority & Minority Leaders $188,100

House/Senate Members & Delegates $169,300

Chief Justice, Supreme Court $217,400

Associate Justices, Supreme Court $208,100

As of January 2006

President $400,000

Vice President $212,100

Speaker of the House $212,100

House Majority & Minority Leaders $183,500

House/Senate Members & Delegates $165,200

Chief Justice, Supreme Court $212,100

Associate Justices, Supreme Court $203,000

 

As of January 2005

President $400,000

Vice President $208,100

Speaker of the House $208,100

House Majority & Minority Leaders $180,100

House/Senate Members & Delegates $162,100

Chief Justice, Supreme Court $208,100

Associate Justices, Supreme Court $199,200

 

As of January 2004

President $400,000

Vice President $203,000

Speaker of the House $203,000

House Majority & Minority Leaders $175,700

House/Senate Members & Delegates $158,100

Chief Justice, Supreme Court $203,000

Associate Justices, Supreme Court $194,300

SWEET

 

Each Chamber has different system of allowances that enable lawmakers to hire staff and maintain offices in Washington and their home states.

House Members are entitled to a flat personnel allowance from which they may hire up to 18 full-time staff members, an Official Office Expenses Allowance consisting of a base amount plus adjustments for prevailing rents in the district and travel distance between Washington and the district, and an Official Mail Allowance based on the number of non-business addresses in the district. These three components are combined to form the Member's Representational Allowance (MRA). Although the Official Mail Allowance still forms part of this MRA, the limit on the portion a lawmaker could spending on franked mail from his or her MRA was removed in 1999. In 2005 MRA amounts tended to range between $1.2 and $1.4 million.

The Senate's system of allowances consists of an Administrative and Clerical Assistance component based on population of the home state, a flat Legislative Assistance Allowance to hire three legislative staff members, and an Official Office Expense Allowance (primarily based on population of the state and distance from Washington) for items like travel, franked mail, and office supplies. Senate office expense data is not disclosed as readily as House data, but NTU estimates that combined Senate allowances range from $2 million to under $4 million per office.

None of these allowances include extra money for employee benefits, the lawmakers' own salaries, or considerable budgets for lawmakers' committee work.

 

Members do pay taxes on their Congressional salaries, but they have given themselves some extra perks that elevate them above normal taxpayers.

For example, they wrote into the law a $3,000 annual income tax deduction for maintaining a second residence. Normally, a taxpayer in a lawmaker's income bracket could be subject to reductions in the value of his or her mortgage interest write-off for residences. The typical American who uses an additional residence for business or rental purposes may qualify for certain expense deductions, but only by filing complex forms.

In addition the IRS maintains two "customer service centers" to assist lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees in filling out their tax forms at a cost to taxpayers of $100,000. In 1993 Money Magazine determined that 60 percent of the Members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, who are responsible for our tax laws, didn't even prepare their own tax returns. (For more on the advantages of holding office, see "NTUF Policy Paper 131: Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers)

 

Lawmakers do pay 8 percent of their salaries into their pension system, although this only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

Member of Congress began to pay into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul.

In addition, Members of Congress DO NOT draw the “same pension” as their pay in the last year of office as suggested in a rumor circulating on the Internet; only federal judges do that under the term “retirement pay.” Still, the formula is quite generous, and, with 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member’s final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAS begin to kick in.

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector. That ought to be enough to concern any taxpayer.

Additional information concerning pay and perks is available in NTUF Policy Paper 131.

 

Under the terms of Public Law 101-194, the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989, lawmakers receive an annual adjustment in pay [a cost of living adjustment or COLA] equal to the change in the government's Employment Cost Index for the fourth quarter of the prior calendar year versus the year before that (this constitutes a one-year time lag between when the pay raise is measured and when it actually takes effect). An automatic provision is made for this pay hike each year, and is self-implementing without any specific vote by Congress (i.e., passage of the overall Treasury appropriations bill enables the raise to occur). However, Members of Congress can, by majority vote, block the pay increase from taking place. This occurred for salary hikes slated for 1994-1997 and for 1999.

P.L. 101-194 also created a new Citizens Commission on Public Service and Compensation to make quadrennial recommendations on salaries for top-level federal officials. However, according to an October 31, 2005 Congressional Service Report, this Commission has not convened.

Members of Congress have linked their own pay increase to that of thousands of other high-ranking personnel in the federal government, including cabinet agency heads and judges. For further details on this phenomenon, read NTUF Policy Paper 138, Something Congress Can Be Thankful For: A Pay Raise in the New Year.

 

 

On September 14, 2007, President Bush signed a bill that contains a version of the "no pensions for Congressional felons" reform we sought.

From here on out, Members of Congress who commit certain felonies (like perjury, bribery, or fraud) related to their official duties won't be allowed to draw from a Congressional pension "honey-pot" that overtaxed American workers are forced to fill.

Previously, only a conviction for a "high crime" such as treason or espionage constitutes sufficient grounds for a lawmaker to be deprived of his or her pension. The 1954 "Hiss Act" originally included such offenses as bribery to constitute removal of a pension, but the law was narrowed in 1961. In March of 1995 NTU research determined that at least 13 former lawmakers convicted of offenses such as bribery and tax evasion were collecting taxpayer-funded benefits, some doing so while sitting in jail. Other convicted lawmakers, ranging from Dan Rostenkowski (1995) to James Traficant (2003) to Randy "Duke" Cunningham (2005) have joined this list.

Information on Congressional Retirement Benefits

 

Members of Congress began paying into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul. This is a requirement, and Members may not opt out of it. They then have the option of participating in one of two pension plans, depending upon when they were elected (most of them do). If elected before 1984, they participate in the Civil Service Retirement System; if elected 1984 and after, they participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System. These two plans are also offered to rank and file federal employees, EXCEPT that the Congressional plan's benefit is calculated on a more generous formula than that offered to most other government workers. The "accrual rate" is much higher, and lawmakers tend to be able to retire earlier with benefits than other federal workers (as early as age 50).

Also, Members of Congress may participate in the government-wide Thrift Savings Plan, which works like a federally-managed 401 (k) salary reduction plan. FERS participants are entitled to a government match of up to five percent of salary; CSRS participants may set aside part of their own salary, but they do not receive the match.

In both cases, Members of Congress do contribute to their pension plans, although the rates are somewhat complicated by the fact that since 1983, lawmakers have been required to pay into Social Security. Members elected before 1984 must pay 8 percent of their salaries into the pension plan, but may elect a "Social Security offset" provision that allows them to split the pay-in (6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.8 percent for the pension.) The result is that upon retirement, Members receive a pension that is reduced by the amount of Social Security that is attributable to Congressional service. Members elected in 1984 and thereafter pay 1.3 percent towards the pension and 6.2 percent to Social Security. This only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then live 10 or more years longer. This could include George Mitchell, especially after his post-Congressional government service. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million).

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.

Additional information concerning pay and perks is available in NTUF Policy Paper 131.

Desire for More Spending Stalls Drive for Budget Discipline

According to the NTU Foundation's latest BillTally report, lawmakers in the first session of the 110th Congress introduced more savings bills than recent Congresses, but for each single step toward fiscal responsibility with a bill to reduce the federal budget, Representatives and Senators introduced 22 bills and 30 bills, respectively, to increase it. "Although there are some signs that more lawmakers in the 110th Congress are seeking out ways to trim expenditures, these steps have been halting and erratic," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady, who authored the study. "The majority of Congressional Members sponsor a mix of legislation that would, on net, result in new spending, thereby increasing the strain on the budget and the burden on taxpayers."

Excluding overlapping legislation, if the House passed all of the bills introduced in 2007, annual federal outlays would add a burden of $14,802 to every household (a $1.7 trillion increase overall). In the Senate, all non-overlapping bills would pile an additional $9,857 on every household (a $1.1 trillion total increase).

You can read the Foundation's report as well as view detailed reports for each Member of Congress here.

Chuck Baldwin:
 America's Mainstream
Candidate For President!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFV8_Y5cSPw

 

 #################################################
##################
Very Important
 Special Note: 
######################################################
################ 
 
In the next couple of weeks, deadlines for ballot access petition drives, particularly in several eastern states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, and West Virginia, will be upon us.  The Constitution Party
is working very hard in these and other states to make sure that Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle will be on the ballot to provide a real choice to Americans all across the country. 
 
There is still time for you to help in these key states, but time is running very short.
 
If you can help collect signatures (or in Massachusetts drive to deliver pertitions to the towns for verification) in these or other states or if you know of someone who would be interested in doing so, please call the Constitution Party National Office in Lancaster, PA at 1-800-2-VETO-IRS or (717) 390-1993. Please leave a message with a return number and you will be contacted as soon as possible with information about how you can help in this most critical effort.
 
You can see HERE where we are still working and need your help with ballot access.
Please don't be in the 
position of wishing, in
September or October,
that you had done more to help
get the Baldwin/Castle ticket on
the ballot in your state when you
had the opportunity to do so!
 
Please Act Now!!
 
www.constitutionparty.com

 On the eve of Democrat Barack Obama's overseas tour, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told employees at U.S. embassies to provide only minimal help to visiting presidential candidates.

 

The orders went to all overseas posts and told government employees not to do anything that might show favoritism or amount to improper campaign activity. A spokesman said the State Department issued similar orders ahead of presumed Republican nominee John McCain's similar overseas tour four months ago, but limited the communication to embassies in countries the Republican planned to visit.

 

Obama traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq in his capacity as a member of Congress and was joined by Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I. Like his Afghanistan stop, his visit to Iraq had heavy security and limited media access. Visiting U.S. officials and lawmakers often invite reporters to cover their visits and some hold news conferences with leaders in Baghdad, but Obama has been shielded from the media.

 

In Iraq, journalists were able to watch him depart from meetings and managed to shout questions, but the replies were brief and Obama didn't break stride. His movements around Iraq were also kept secret by U.S. officials.

 

 

The Defense Department released three brief videos of Obama meeting with troops in Basra and President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in Baghdad's heavily secured Green Zone.

 

Obama's advisers have insisted the visit is not a campaign trip but a chance to strengthen international relationships. Still, he traveled to the war zone with two potential vice presidential candidates - Hagel and Reed.

 

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said there was nothing unusual about either set of Rice's instructions or their timing, but would not provide the full text.

 

"I don't have any information to show that it was anything but us providing information to the field about what we're expecting our folks to be doing," Gallegos said Monday.

 

Gallegos said there was no "specific reason that because he, this specific candidate, is going out that we now have to remind everybody," but said embassy employees did have questions about what was appropriate. Rice's all-points memo was meant to make sure that "everybody is singing off the same sheet of music," Gallegos said.

 

Government employees are prohibited from certain political activity on the job and cannot perform campaign work. Rice's orders give examples of things embassy employees should not do, such as arrange high-level meetings for visiting candidates or get involved in nitty-gritty logistical details.

 

As an example of appropriate logistical help, Rice's memo, sent late Thursday, said, "If the campaign staff wants to rent a bus for press, tell them where they can rent a bus."

 

Rice's order, first reported by The Washington Times, makes clear that the rules apply to either candidate. The rules are more complicated this year because both candidates are members of Congress, who are normally accorded extensive embassy support when they travel overseas.

 

Under ordinary circumstances, diplomats might meet congressional delegations at the airport, set up briefings with the host government, and arrange sightseeing or shopping tours.

 

Obama's trip is further complicated by the fact that two fellow senators traveled with him during his visits to Afghanistan and Iraq over the past several days, but Obama will continue solo for other stops in the Middle East and Europe.

 

Gallegos could not say whether embassy employees made any distinction between Obama and the others when arranging the senators' Iraq visit on Monday. The visit included meetings with top Iraqi officials.

 

The orders tell diplomats and bureaucrats overseas to treat the candidates as "members of Congress visiting in personal or semi-personal capacities," but "with additional restrictions based on rules related to political activity."

 

Gallegos said such warnings are standard procedure "every four years."

 

McCain ad blames Obama for rising gas prices 

 Republican presidential candidate John McCain is launching a new television ad that blames Democratic rival Barack Obama for rising gasoline prices.

 

The ad, airing on national cable and in 11 battleground states, argues that the cost of fuel is rising because of opposition to oil drilling in the United States.

 

The announcer in the ad says, "Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"

 

A photograph of Obama appears on the stage as a voiceover of a crowd chants: "Obama, Obama, Obama!" AND I THOUGHT IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT !!!!!