Archive for the 'Senate Bills 2007' Category

Remember the days when President Bush referred to himself as a ‘compassionate conservative’?  Perhaps not; it seems quite a while since the President last acted in a manner either compassionate or conservative.

Well, he had his chance yesterday, to prove that notion wrong, by signing the SCHIP expansion into law.  But the President once against failed to live up to his once-popular moniker; issuing his fourth veto to block the bill.

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children’s health insurance.

Why is this veto neither compassionate or conservative?  Well, it isn’t compassionate because the President’s actions halted a bipartisan effort to expand health insurance for children, and it isn’t conservative because the expansion wouldn’t have raised federal spending; it was setup to pay for itself.

It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

Yet what was one of the big reasons the President gave for his veto?

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly

Yeah, our President: compassionate and conservative!  Is anyone proud?

Today, the upper house of our great legislative body wasted precious time passing a feel-good amendment when it should have working on more important issues.  The amendment read:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David II. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Of course, this amendment was issued in response to recent Move On advertisements that have attacked General Petraeus.  It angers me that the Senate feels the need to wag their collective finger at Americans using their right to free speech and political expression.  Furthermore, this bill again contains the feel good support-the-troops overtone; once again suggesting the fallacy that opposing the war is opposing the troops.

It was the reference to the troops that won this amendment its overwhelming support, with a vote of 72-25.   Once again we see how hesitant our representatives are to call a spade a spade when allegations of being unpatriotic are floating about.  Both Tester and Baucus embarrassed our state by signing onto this ‘amendment’. The Senate has far more pressing business to take care of; they should spend their time solving the Iraq problem instead of censuring people who are just saying their peace.

Besides, if anyone deserves to be scolded for their behavior towards our military service people, there are far more appropriate targets.

Senate Democrats followed through with a threat to cut Cheney’s funding in response to a fight over his belief that his office isn’t part of the Executive branch of government.

A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president’s budget until Cheney’s office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.

At issue is a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how much material they classify and declassify. That information is to be provided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. However, my favorite part of the article, and thus the situation, was what Sam Brownback had to say about the move:

Such a step, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would set a terrible precedent in relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, which have historically let each other set their own budgets.

“This is going to further erode any sort of working relationship back and forth,” Brownback said. “This is a patently bad idea.”

Where has Brownback been for the last 6 years? Does he actually think there is any semblance of good relations between Congress and the President anymore? Unless utter defiance and a refusal to compromise are signs of a ‘good working relationship’, I’d have to say that ship sailed years ago.

Last year, the White House estimates, there were $19 billion in earmark expenditures; a problem Democrats promised to fix if and when they captured Congressional power from Republicans. One step towards solving (or at least curbing) the problem was to require bills to have attachments documenting any earmarks contained within, for easier oversight. This was a good idea in my opinion, not just because our elected officials could more easily see earmarks as they were added, but also so we simple voters could have a better eye into these expenses as well. Except that the House Appropriations Chairman (David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat) has requested that his colleagues keep such documentation out of the bills until a later time:

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.

Why the delay? My first reaction was to assume that waiting until the last minute would make it harder for opponents of such spending to interfere with the earmarks. I have to admit how terrible of an idea this is, especially considering the kinds of promises that got Democrats elected last November. There might be a better explanation for this decision, but it is probably going to be hard to get people to listen to it over all the uproar this has garnered.

For his part, Obey claims a more innocuous reason for the delay:

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

The committee has been absorbed with writing a catchall spending bill cleaning up unfinished budget business from last year and the just-completed Iraq war spending bill.

Both points which are very understandable. Congress did adjourn with a lot of unfinished business last time; a mistake which we can lay squarely on the lame-duck Republican leadership. And 36,000 is an awfully large amount of requests; a number which itself points right back to the problem Democrats promised to solve in the first place. Still, this isn’t a good enough justification. I cannot understand how the best way to deal with too many requests is to procrastinate; putting these requests off is certainly not going to make them any easier to deal with. If anything, Obey is only worsening the situation. Not to mention the fact that his executive decision is soiling the chorus of reform from last November:

What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny when appropriations bills are debated.

[snip]

Some Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are threatening to block appropriations bills from going to House-Senate conference talks if that is when lawmakers’ projects are going to be added.

It pains me to say this, but I agree with this threat; Conference talks are meant to iron out inconsistencies in bi-cameral legislation, not sneak in extra money for back home. If these earmarks can’t survive the full light of day in their respective chambers, they don’t deserve the vote. The only silver lining here is that this move isn’t a caucus decision, but rather the solution put forth by a single Democrat. Let’s hope the more level-headed of his party can convince him otherwise.

Eight days into the first 100 days of Congress, the House passed H.R. 4, a bill requiring the secretary of health and human services to negotiate drug prices. Democrats were keeping their promise, having called for “fixing Medicare.” I heard that promise from the soon-to-be Senator Jon Tester himself – who talked about the need to negotiate prices for prescription drugs and eliminate the gap in benefits that the Medicare Part D ‘reform’ created. No need to detail the response by his predecessor.

Most of you are probably aware that Senator Max Baucus was the proud co-sponsor of that 2003 legislation (Medicare Part D). I personally wrote 3 letters to the Senator prior to the passage of that bill, asking him to reconsider, and specifically asking him to allow reimportation of prescription drugs and negotiation of prices. His first reply was a form letter, the second a lame attempt to address the issues I re-addressed to him, and the third a chest-beating “look what I did” self promotion. One word : Yuck. It was the first of 3 strikes I placed against him. (He has since redeemed himself somewhat with his reassessment of the war in Iraq.)

Well, Baucus is now seemingly between a rock and a hard place. He’s got Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate, yet he can’t stomach H.R. 4, so he’s drafted his own bill (S.3) that will allow the secretary to negotiate drug prices. Baucus says that his bill will “untie the hands of the secretary,” so he could “strike a better deal” for some drugs. The key word here is allow versus require. I think we’ll end up with cheaper antibiotics and more expensive everything else drugs.

Maine Republican (and fellow Finance Committee member) Olympia Snow is “surprised and disappointed” that the Senate Democratic leaders don’t want to require negotiations. (Note: H.R. 4 passed with 231 Democrats and 24 Republicans.)

(more..plus your action alert below the fold…) Read the rest of this entry »

I am a little conflicted on the issue of reregulation. On the surface, it sounds like one of the best ideas to come down the pike in years but I am concerned. You see, those that oppose the senate bill claim that they believe that this is a move by Northwestern to prop up theor stock value and have the tax payers front the bill for new power generation plants.

“We have an ill-conceived bill that comes out at the last minute with amendments that put consumers at risk, all so the utility company can prop up a stock to facilitate a sale. Sound familiar?” said Sen. Roy Brown, D-Billings. “I say let’s not do that again.”

The so-called “re-regulation” proposal would primarily allow Northwestern Energy to build new power plants. In exchange, the company would have to sell the power to consumers at regulated, cost-based rates.

Sponsor Sen. Jesse Laslovich, D-Anaconda, said deregulation has become a bad word in Montana, and has swayed many elections since 1997. He said it is time to start chipping away at the deregulation law and perhaps let regulators hold more sway over energy prices.

“This bill does not end deregulation. It’s an attempt to get at prices and stabilize them for the long term,” he said. “This bill is a small step to try to reduce the impact to consumers and their energy bills.”

I wrote here about my concern with Northwestern’s seemingly direct control over our state legislators. We all know what a dirty word ‘deregulation’ has become in this state and I have a bit of concern that senators are voting for this bill just because it has the opposite name of ‘reregulation’. You see, I am a bit shell shocked over the last 6 years of federal bills with names that mean the opposite of the bills content (think ‘Clean Skies’ and ‘Clean Range’) and I would hope that is not the case here.

I remain conflicted on this one. Mostly, I know that the system that we have now is broken but I am concerned that this bill will create an even tighter monopoly for Northwestern or whatever foreign company buys them out.

You know that bumper sticker that reads “Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes”?  Turns out that applies to nervousness as well as age.

I took the afternoon off of work to go to the State Administration Senate Committee to hear a few bills before the committee.

A few reports before I get to the meat of it.  HB 351, Sponsor Sinrud, essentially saying that a Legislator cannot accept a state job while in office.  I gained an appreciation for Senator Vicki Cocchiarella, who objected to the bill quite stridently, based on her own experience of being a Legislator, and who accepted a job with the state about a year and a half ago, and said something to the effect of such legislation being a personal insult to her service.  Not to mention the fact that it would disallow a whole segment of the population from getting promoted while in a state job.  Other members talked about working at the Universities from time to time, and pointed out that such work would be prohibited should 351 pass.  I was impressed with the interest and engagement of the Senators with the tabling of this bill.  (7 to 4 by my count, I might be off).

HB 316 called for the full title of a bill to be published on campaign material.  The talk and testimony centered around the fact that everyone received negative mailers in campaigns, and that a full title would be prohibitive to inclusion in campaign materials.  HB 316 was also tabled in committee, after Sinrud passed around a mailer he had received at his own home. 

I admit that I wasn’t paying much attention to HB 619, also sponsored by Sinrud, which ended up also being tabled.

HB 520, dealing with a whole lot of election law, was also heard.  Mostly there were editorial changes to the bill.  The part I was interested in dealt with same day registration for voters.  Apparently, the current language still allows for same day registration, but the day prior to the election, offices will shut down from noon to 5 pm to allow for printing of the registered voters.  There is another bill being heard sometime this week that also deals with registration, and Laslovich is on that committee, and apparently I don’t know enough about bills or how they work to understand what happened, but HB ended up with a “Bill Concurred” status after today’s hearing.

HB 783 is the one I got up to speak about.  It says it is to revise election laws, but the bottom line is it would make it a felony if you registered to vote, and weren’t eligible.  Montana law already provides for a misdemeanor charge.  I talked about the cost it would bring to the state, and the fact that someone who thinks they are a citizen, and registers and votes, would then be a felon.  Laslovich asked about how many complaints had been brought at the current misdemeanor level, and it was reported that there were none (score one for Laslovich).  Senator Larry Jent gave my favorite response in action, he said {paraphrasing} “we don’t even charge felons with a felony if they vote, I can’t allow this to pass”.  Senator Jent called to table the bill, and it passed.  HB 783 was tabled in committee.

*****

Now to the reason I took the afternoon off.  HB 462 is the only remaining bill that deals with constituency accounts.  On Friday, Montana Common Cause delivered a letter to each of the Senators, invoking Montana’s ethic’s laws, which basically said, if you have a constituency account, you should disclose it prior to voting on HB 462.  Clean elections  and government people!

Representative Sands got up and explained briefly all of the last minute amendments that were proposed to 462.  Only the committee had the amendments in their hands, so excuse me if I misrepresent or miss one.  The first amendment would allow for constituency accounts out of left over campaign funds only (Williams SB 91); the second amendment would allow for left over campaign funds and one time contributions to the accounts of less than $50, thereby circumventing Montana’s gift ban; the third amendment, as I understand it, would allow contributions up to contribution limits allowed to campaign accounts.  

League of Women Voters got up and said they support 461 with a big IF. One, no new contributions while in office; and Two, not allowing two accounts (campaign and constituency) while in office.

Then Montana Common Cause ( in the interests of disclosure, I am a board member of MT Common Cause), had Jon Motl get up and talk.  Jon pointed out that while he is an attorney, he was not getting paid for this testimony, and was at the hearing on a volunteer basis.  He mentioned four options. One, don’t do anything, table 462 in committee; Two, pass 462 with language only allowing for surplus campaign funds to be deposited into accounts; Three, allow surplus campaign funds and deposits of under $50 from contributors into accounts; and Four, accounts with the same limits provided for campaign accounts.  Jon said any of the four, except for the fourth one would comply with current Montana law.

The Commissioner of Political Practices also got up in the informational portion, and brought a list of possible problems with 462 as written, he had not seen nor had access to the amendments, but understood that the proposed amendments dealt with a lot of the problems he had written.  in a funny quote the Commissioner also mentioned the ethics disclosure law, saying “the cat is out of the bag”.

Senator Balyeat had a lot of questions about the whole $50 gift ban issue.  He couldn’t comprehend where the $50 limit came from.  2-2-102 MCA. 

In action, there was a lot of confusion, understandable given the number of possible amendments, and the need to get back to the floor.  Senator Cocchiarella proposed a vote on amendment 2 suggested by Representative Sands, allowing for surplus campaign funds and one time contributions under 50$, while Balyeat initially said he would support amendment 2, he voted against it.  They then voted to pass amendment 3, allowing for new contributions.

Confusion arose over not getting to vote for no new contributions, option 1.  By voting on amendment 3 first, amendment 1 was no longer on the table.  Everything happened so quickly, I couldn’t tabulate the votes quickly enough.  The results will be out later.

So the bottom line is 462, passed :Bill Concurred as Amended. 

Just don’t think I will be in any way surprised when the Constitutionality of HB 462 is challenged, and when the Senate votes on it, take careful note of who complied with the ethic’s laws by disclosing their own accounts and interest in it’s passage.

Montana Common Cause has actually gone to bat for the necessity of constituency accounts, and advocated for clean accounts.  HB 462, as it currently stands are not clean accounts, and create unfair advantages for people currently in office*.

I will update with who voted what way in the morning, when I know for sure.

(*I still have not seen the amendments, so I am going on what I heard today) 

Today is a proud day for America. The democratically controlled senate did exactly what the American people sent them to Washington to do by upholding language naming a withdrawal date in the spending bill for Mr Bush’s war.

By a vote of 50 to 48, the Senate allowed a withdrawal date of March 31, 2008, to remain in the $122 billion bill, which has yet to be acted upon. The majority defeated an amendment offered by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, that would have removed the date.

Most of the arguments offered by republicans centered around the idea that a withdrawal date empowers the enemy by letting them wait it out. The fallacy of this argument is very clear when you consider that enemy is not some remote ghost living in caves and attacking by night, but dwells openly inside the government in Bahgdad. The fact that the same militias that are at the heart of the civil war are financed by government ties and are very friendly with the Iraqi government.  Through our meddling, we have made things in Iraq way worse than they were before.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, disputed any suggestion that a timetable was a prescription for defeat. Rather, he said, it is “a signal to the Iraqi leaders that we cannot save them from themselves.”

When the administration sold this war with a pack of lies to the American people, they made the claim that it would be over in month. ‘Months’ have come and gone many times and things have only gotten worse in Iraq. We are further from a solution than we were two years ago. If not now, when do we insist that Iraq takes control of their own destiny? In two years? In ten? In twenty? How long do they get before we realize that there is no military solution in Iraq?

“There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq,” Mr. Hagel said. “There will not be a military solution to Iraq.”

“Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there,” Mr. Hagel said. “It doesn’t belong to the United States.”

At some point you draw a line in the sand and say ‘Enough is enough’. Mr Bush put us in an illegal war without end and I’ll be damned if I want to still see our kids dying over there in 20 years. I want to take this opportunity to thank Jon Tester and Max Baucus for doing the right thing. We need about 49 more like you two.

CeCe posted no doubt a well meaning post on SB279, claiming

 This bill has undermining the initiative process written all over it. Not to mention the fact that it weakens transparency in elections laws already on Montana’s books.

You see, basically, it removes ballot issues from fair notice laws. SB 279 deletes it right out of the laws. If SB 279 passes, initiative issues would be exempted from disclosure of advertising in print media, printed material, or broadcast media for public distribution 10 days prior to the election. Leaving the battlefield of lies wide open for initiative issues, without a fair chance to rebut the arguments presented.

Well, thats simply not the case and the post needs to be clarified.  Should SB279 pass, it would be new law.  The Clean Campaign act is not current law, and the changes described occurred in the proposed bill.  We currently do not require “fair notice” for either candidates for office or ballot initiatives. 

Regardless of the sponsor, SB279 is attempting to provide notice to candidates of materials released 10 days prior to the election.  CeCe was correct in pointing out the original draft include ballot measures, which were subsequently amended out of the bill in committee.  SB279 passed out of the Senate 49-1.

Although initiatives were removed, the bill is worthy of consideration, particularly in this day and age.  Amending initiatives back into the bill is still certainly possible in the house.

What the bill would do in its current form, however, would stop something like a postcard showing up on your door 2 days before the general election depicting a lady in plastic bag asking if it was your neighbor, from being a surprise to Rep. McChesney.

Apparently so, because they don’t seem to have any memory, short term or long term.  I’m talking about resolutions.  Non-binding, binding, I don’t give a crap.  The right has been screaming and moaning for weeks now about the proposed non-binding resolution in the House (which passed today) and the Senate (which appears to have some steam again). Hmmmm…. I seem to remember something like this happening in the 90’s…. what was that?…. oh yeah!  I’m sick and tired of the collective memory failures of the republicans, and democrats for that matter. ENOUGH!  It happens every day, every week, every year.  I’m tired of it, you’re tired of it, we’re all tired of it.  But don’t take my word for it.  This is Senator Chuch Hagel’s (R-Nebraska) floor statement from Feb. 12, 2007.  Don’t believe him?  Look it up. 

Read the rest of this entry »

The Montana Senate judiciary committee voted 8 to 4 to abolish Montana’s death penalty. Now the Senate bill introduced by Dan Harrington, D-Butte will go for a full debate.  Most of the arguments I have heard on it are very valid appeals to the conscience. On one hand you have:

“I don’t think we always know who’s innocent and who’s guilty,” Sen. Carol Williams, D-Missoula, said. “As long as I feel there’s the potential that somebody may be innocently convicted of something, I think the government shouldn’t be in the business of executing Montanans.”

And on the other side:

Opponents said capital punishment can be a deterrent to criminals, and must be kept on the books as an option for prosecutors.

“We’re all given a choice in this life as to how we’re going to live. … There comes a time where a society has a right to say ‘No. No more,’” Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, said.

OK. You see, Dan McGee’s argument is wrong. Dead wrong (pun intended). Capital punishment is not any more of a deterrent to crime than incarceration.  The stats back this up and there are a lot of valid points on why this is so. Here is a summary:

1. A punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet these conditions.
2. Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.
3. If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

Now, there is another argument that is often made in favor of the death penalty: “Why should tax payers house and feed these criminals?“  Short answer? It is cheaper than executing them. If you are really concerned about the taxpayers, then you must be against the death penalty.

This is a square and open question to those of you who support the death penalty. Why? Honestly, I don’t understand.

First off, I want to thank Montana state Senator Steve Gallus of Butte for carrying the legislation to oppose the escalation in Iraq. I think he speaks rather eloquently on the issue:

“This resolution is not a commentary on George Bush Jr.,” he said. “It’s a letter requesting that he change his policies and start looking at this war in a different way.”

While his stance is not as strong as I would like to see, I am glad to see this proposal making its way through the system.
We’ll see how it turns out.

Someone told me that someone, somewhere wrote a letter to the editor saying that I didn’t support our troops (I would link to it if I could find it), and something about headlines in the IR. I can’t find the letter, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to respond.

First off, I completely agree, little Loic and his tragedy, should have been the top story. Hands down, no questions asked.
Another point was raised: supporting our troops. One thing I said in my interview, and the reporter noted, is that I firmly believe that you can support our troops, but not the war.
Things get edited in reporting stories, for space and time, and I don’t blame the reporter. The Editor might have something to answer too. Yes, there was an inflammatory comment, taken slightly out of context, and without what I really said behind the statement.
I do believe that we should start to pull our troops out. I also believe that we have a duty to the citizens of Iraq to do the best we can to facilitate their new government, and to protect our own people. I believe that the troops are doing their sworn duty to the US, and I support them.
That is why I am speaking out against the war. For ours and theirs.
Who knows? 3 years from now people might point at me, and say how wrong I was. I am ok with that, because I believe, given all that I know now, that this is the right course of action to take.
Wars aren’t won. A truce is called. Someone claims to be the victor, and someone brushes under the rug that they might be considered the “loser”. No one wins when their beloveds die. And who are we to say that one person is more important than the other?
Wars aren’t won. Wars are fought. Wars end in a truce.

Isn’t it time to take another look at how we are approaching the “War” (military engagement) in Iraq?

They say hindsight is 20/20. I think it is time to take a look back, and evaluate.
How can that be a bad thing?

Let’s get to the chase. What changes are proposed:
***********

2007 Montana Legislature
About Bill — Links
SENATE BILL NO. 18
INTRODUCED BY J. SHOCKLEY

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT PROVIDING THAT A LEVEL 2 OR 3 SEXUAL OFFENDER WHO COMMITTED AN OFFENSE INVOLVING A MINOR MAY NOT, WHILE ON PROBATION OR PAROLE OR UNDER A DEFERRED OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE, RESIDE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY OR HIGH SCHOOL, PRESCHOOL, LICENSED DAY-CARE CENTER, CHURCH, OR PARK; AND AMENDING SECTION 46-18-255, MCA.”

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Section 46-18-255, MCA, is amended to read:
“46-18-255. Sentence upon conviction — restriction on employment and residency. (1) A judge sentencing a person upon conviction of a sexual or violent offense shall, as a condition to probation, parole, or deferment or suspension of sentence, impose upon the defendant reasonable employment or occupational prohibitions and restrictions designed to protect the class or classes of persons containing the likely victims of further offenses by the defendant.
(2) In addition to any restriction on employment imposed under subsection (1), a judge sentencing a person convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor and designated as a level 2 or 3 offender under 46-23-509 shall, as a condition to probation, parole, or deferment or suspension of sentence, impose upon the defendant restrictions on the defendant’s residency in the proximity a restriction prohibiting the defendant from residing within 1,000 feet of a private or public elementary or high school, preschool as defined in 20-5-402, licensed day-care center, church, or park maintained by a city, town, or county.”
- END -
**********
This one I am for. When I first heard it reported on the news, I was a little skeptical. Yes skeptical. People have the right to start over, after they have served their debt to society.
What is 1,000 feet? Well a football field is 360 feet in length, picture yourself in Grizzly Stadium, multiply it by three, minus end zones, less 80 feet, and that is 1,000 feet.
At first I thought it included all levels and status of convicted sex offender’s, but the bill says that “as a condition to probation, parole, or deferment or suspension of sentence” shall abide by this length limit to “within 1,000 feet of a private or public elementary or high school, preschool as defined in 20-5-402, licensed day-care center, church, or park maintained by a city, town, or county”. It includes moderate to high level repeat sex offenders.

I am all for giving an exact definition of limits. That leaves no questions in a Judge’s mind for interpretation.

A few football fields of distance from a place where children gather on a regular basis seems like a reasonable restriction to me.

46-23-509, MCA.

20-5-402, MCA.

Vote YES on, SB 18.