The city of Berkeley recently passed legislation asking a local Marine Corps recruiting facility to leave its downtown area. They did so while granting Code Pink, the radical anti-war, anti-troop protest group, a free parking space in front of the recruitment office and a free sound permit for a week of anti-troop rallies. Berkeley’s city council members have acted in a way that is both unpatriotic and shameful. At a time when our troops are in harms way, their disrespect for the men and women who serve in our military is shocking.

Berkeley and its elected officials are free to make their own policies, no matter how poor they may be. From now on, they can pay for those policies with their own money. If they cannot govern themselves in a way that reflects a common sense of decency then they should not receive millions of dollars in special federal assistance.

The White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), created under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 is history, having gone out of business on Wednesday. I am grateful to the board members’ service over the past three years. Unfortunately, the White House has failed to send Congress any nominees for the stronger replacement board, created in the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.

I am concerned that the lack of transition planning to the new board has created a gap in the oversight needed to respond to the ongoing threat of terrorism. The President should move swiftly to nominate members to the new board so they can get to work protecting the public’s privacy and civil liberties as we work to protect the country against terrorism.

The new board will serve the same functions as the old board - advising the President and other members of the executive branch on the privacy and civil liberties implications of new terrorism policies or regulations and overseeing and investigating subsequent government actions to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are upheld. Read the rest of this entry »

The State of the Union is an opportunity for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and all Americans to consider where we are as a country, where we want to go, and how to best get there. It is important to share our priorities which not only affect Hispanics, but our nation on the whole. It is our hope that by drawing attention to these issues, we can work with our Congressional colleagues and the Administration.

Times are difficult for many, and one area of great concern to the CHC is housing. With more than two million foreclosures predicted over the next two years, the mortgage crisis is far from over. The CHC will remain focused on the nation’s efforts to help those who might lose their home, ensuring that the unique needs of Hispanic borrowers are addressed by policymakers. The American dream of owning a home is being shattered by the current crisis, as current homeowners are losing their homes at alarming rates.

In general, housing affordability remains a challenge for millions of Americans. Even with declining property values resulting from the foreclosure crisis, too many Hispanic families cannot find a home that their incomes can support. The CHC will continue to work towards fair, affordable mortgage products and highlight a variety of housing options, whether rental or alternative ownership concepts like cooperatives, so that each family can have a safe and stable place to live.

We must also look at the macroeconomic impact of the mortgage crisis. Its impact on local communities will reverberate across the nation, as small business owners are affected, which will impact national producers of goods and services. With fewer financing options, many local communities and developers cannot get the needed funding to make much needed repairs or to turn dilapidated and vacant buildings into new affordable housing units. The CHC will focus on ensuring that communities have resources to create additional affordable and safe housing. Read the rest of this entry »

Listening in on telephone conversations has always been controversial.  There are going to be different ideas about where, when, who and under what circumstances is it justified, but the best thing we have going for us is that we have a FISA bill and we have a FISA court.

The question is: can we improve certain circumstances in how it’s used?  You are going to see a lot of debate on that. You saw that the Judiciary Committee wanted to have its bill, so there are a lot of different ideas, and that’s where you’re going to get a lot of controversy about it.

Everybody, at the end of the day, wants to protect this country from another attack.  The question is how far they are willing to go in listening in, and permitting the listening in, without adequate safeguards. So you have to have this system; we have to have a bill, and we can’t let it expire, but I’m going to take a look at the different offerings that have come up.

I think we need to pass FISA. I think we need to pass the Intelligence Committee FISA bill. I am on the Judiciary Committee and I think what the Judiciary Committee has tried to add here is harmful, not helpful. That is why I am voting against the Leahy substitute.

I appreciate the Chairman and what he is trying to do with it, but it is not going to pass. It is not going to get past the President and we are going to be back later doing same thing that we should do right now.

There’s never been any doubt that this country has a right to surveil foreign communications in the national security and this bill in no way alters the fundamental civil rights protections that we expect as Americans.  It is not any major expansion of our legal capability to intercept foreign communications that may be injurious to America.

I feel strongly that the legislation has been narrowly drafted.  I do not think companies who were asked in writing by the attorney general of the United States to assist this country ought to be sued for doing their duty, and ultimately I’m hopeful that we will get this behind us because one thing is crystal clear and that is that this is very important.  Without continuing this fix, we are going to lose dramatically in intelligence gathering capability.

This is an issue that shouldn’t be played around with. This should be an issue that should be bipartisan. The Intelligence Committee that delved into this extensively knows the classified materials, are fully familiarized with the terrorist surveillance program, and passed out a bill 13 to 2 — bipartisan bill.

We need to go about getting this bill passed and getting it implemented so we can protect our people. We only have a few days until we won’t have the protections in existence that we ought to have.

Though it’s been a long time coming, the new National Response Framework (NRF) – released by the Department of Homeland Security on January 22nd – is a solid building block toward a secure and better prepared America. After a bumpy start to the effort, the Department righted itself when it began to view Congress, state and local governments, and emergency management groups as partners in the process, not adversaries. The result of this collaborative process is a document that has been well accepted by virtually all interested parties.

I was particularly pleased that the concerns that I had with an earlier draft were addressed in the final document. Specifically: FEMA’s re-invigorated role is recognized; conditions requiring the appointment of a Principal Federal Official (PFO) have been clarified; and the Department and FEMA have recognized the need to move expeditiously on detailed operational planning. Read the rest of this entry »

This is an important step forward for FEMA and for DHS as a whole. In the 2006 floods, the people of Pennsylvania learned first hand how an uncoordinated response can prolong suffering, and I’m glad that DHS seems to be learning from its mistakes and listening to input from the folks at the state and local level who are, after all, the true first responders.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff responds to criticism from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairmen Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and others about the DHS border ID plan.