We waited for so long for someone in the Democratic leadership to recognize that a compromise needed to be struck for the good of our country. I applaud Steny Hoyer for reaching across the aisle to get this done. This is a very responsible compromise, hammered out in a bipartisan way. The people who struck this compromise should be applauded.

It is well past time to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Our nation has been left vulnerable since the previous legislation expired February 16th. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am extremely concerned about our national security and deeply troubled that our intelligence community has been prevented from doing work needed to protect Americans. We do not monitor phone conversations, emails or finances of suspected terrorists and terrorist allies as we used to – and the enemy knows it. It is time for us to strengthen, not weaken, terrorist surveillance.

Since coming into power last January, Democrat leadership has time and again put politics before the safety of our nation and its citizens. Instead of prioritizing arguably the most important security issue, they have dilly-dallied for almost a year. Read the rest of this entry »

The Hill’s Bob Cusack takes a look at the week ahead on Capitol Hill.

My proposal is to establish a domestic terror court for the trying of those suspected of involvement in terror.  I think an international court or Article III courts are both not going to be the appropriate response once we close Guantanamo.  I also think it’s going to be critical to undergo a vetting process establishing this objective criteria for determining who really needs to stay in detention.  A domestic terror court, in terms of the introduction of classified information and not having a jury trial, I think as we move forward that’s going to be the most realistic, workable proposal.

It’s clear that there are problems with my proposal.  I am well aware of that.  That being said, I think it’s the most realistic, workable option.  The idea of having some kind of commission to look at the various options and proposals objectively and including a comparative approach is also correct.  But at the end of the day, we need to set up a system that enables us to try individuals who we’ve held for six and a half years and end up in detention, which is clearly a violation of the Constitution.

Editor’s Note: Guiora testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

The basic point is that when it comes to dealing with people suspected of terrorism, our existing criminal justice institutions are more than up to the task.  It would be a mistake to try to create from scratch yet another new system like the one in Guantanamo to deal with these people.

Some members of the committee were more receptive than others.  I think Chairman Leahy would agree with the position I’ve put forward.  It’s very important that there was a sitting federal judge on the panel and an experienced prosecutor who agreed with the proposition that our existing courts are up to the challenge.  I think they spoke with some degree of experience and expertise to rebut the perception that the administration has put forward that we can’t rely on our courts to do this.

Editor’s Note: Malinowski testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

I was very pleased to hear the strong testimony during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the federal courts’ ability to handle terrorism detainees. The testimony questioned the need for this completely separate system when the current criminal and military tribunal systems apparently work well and can incorporate the needs of secrecy and other things that are apparent. I thought it was an important hearing, and I think it’s pretty clear that the conclusion is this administration does not have to take this to the extreme that it is taking it.

The Hill’s Jackie Kucinich lays out the agenda for this week on Capitol Hill.

Here we are, four days from Memorial Day weekend, and Congress still hasn’t passed a funding bill for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers and Marines are achieving undeniable progress on the ground in Iraq—and what does Congress do? It spends the final hours before Memorial Day recess passing this “critical” legislation:

H.Res. 1147 - Congratulating the Northern Kentucky University Norse women’s basketball team
H.Con.Res. 305 - Recognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation
H.Res. 1144 - Expressing support for designation of a “Frank Sinatra Day”
H.Res. 1152 - Honoring Arnold Palmer for his distinguished career in the sport of golf and his commitment to excellence and sportsmanship
H.Res. 1074 - Honoring the 60th anniversary of the commencement of the carving of the Crazy Horse Memorial Read the rest of this entry »

Sen. Enzi is ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

I am strongly opposed to the Democrat proposal that the Senate is now debating on the floor to impose unionization on state and local first responders. This bill would jeopardize national security, impose an enormous unfunded mandate on states and towns, and trample the rights of first responders in the workplace.

Make no mistake: the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions. The bill does not contain a dime of money or a single provision that would increase the pay or benefits of any firefighter, police officer or first responder. There is nothing in this bill that would enhance their working conditions, make their jobs safer, or their retirement more secure. It only imposes totally unfunded costs on states, cities and towns that will make those exact results less, not more, likely.

H.R. 980, the so-called Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would jeopardize national security by eliminating the right of states to take certain items off the bargaining table, like manning and staffing levels, training and job requirements, deadly force rules, drug-testing, merit pay and promotion. Read the rest of this entry »

With Congress and President Bush entering negotiations over the next tranche of war funding, via an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, now is a good time for a little emergency check.

As the lead editorial in today’s Washington Post, Not an Emergency, points out, “[f]ive years into paying for two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s outrageous that so much of the financing continues to be approved outside the normal budget process, through ‘emergency’ spending bills that must be passed, must be passed in a hurry…”

So, five years to the month after “mission accomplished,” after half a trillion dollars in war spending through supplementals, maybe it’s time to focus attention on a budget reform proposal that has been circulating in Washington for, well, at least five years. It seeks to end a practice, which, as we have said “obscures or distorts important aspects of the fiscal impact of federal spending and, therefore, undermines the general fiscal responsibility of the federal government.” Read the rest of this entry »