THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 28 - H.R. 1722 REMINDS US THAT SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

As reported, the House took up H.R. 1722 under a Rule requiring only a simple majority for passage.  The Teleworks legislation will now head to the Senate.

Back in May, when this legislation was first considered by the House Virginia's Democratic Representative concisely summed up H.R. 1722, the Teleworks improvement Act. From the floor of the House he said, "The Teleworks Improvements Act is an important piece of legislation because it will help us meet five critical policy goals: reduction of dependence on foreign oil; reduction in traffic congestion; improvement in air quality; improvement in Federal recruitment and retention; and improvement in the continuity of operations plan for the Federal Government."

In May Maryland's Democratic Representative John Sarbanes expressed confidence that the bill enjoyed bipartisan approach. He was correct. Yesterday, forty-five Republicans voted to pass this bill. The margin for roll call 441 was 290 to 131. One Democrat, Marion Berry of Arkansas, voted against the bill, as did Lynn Jenkins. Back in May the bill needed a two thirds majority to pass, it didn't get it.  Yesterday the bill needed a simple majority to pass.  It got more a than two thirds majority.  Go figure.

The Congressional Record has not posted the floor debate which preceded roll call 441.

Debate on the bill was less than competitive when the proposal came up the first time. Massachusetts' Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch and Utah's Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz controlled the time as floor managers for the two parties. They both voted for the bill.

Representative Chaffetz yielded time to West Virginia Republican Shelley Capito who voted for the bill. Chaffetz then yielded time to Virginia's Republican Representative Frank Wolf, who voted for the measure. No one spoke against the bill.

Those who voted against H.R. 1722 didn't have what it took to muster a debate and explain to America why they were opposed to the Teleworks Improvement Act. That includes Lynn Jenkins. That was roll call 251.

Representative Sarbanes was right, there was so much bipartisan support that those who voted no wouldn't show themselves during debate. That reminds me of Buddy Ebsen's character from the Beverly Hillbillies. He'd say "Pitiful , just pitiful."

"Pitiful, just pitiful" 

IN SEARS v. UPTON THE SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT STANDARD OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Per Curiam is a Latin phrase meaning "speaking for the court." More often than not these opinions speak for a unanimous multi-judge appellate court. No one particular jurist is tasked with writing a signed opinion. Dissenting opinions, typically rare, are signed by the judge disagreeing with the per curiam decision.

Sears v. Upton is, bar none, the most interesting per curiam decision that I've ever read. That is thanks to Associate Justice Scalia's contumaciously stubborn streak!

The long title of the case is Demarcus Ali Sears v. Stephen Upton, Warden [of Georgia's Jackson State Prison]. Mr. Sears is on Death Row for "kidnapping with bodily injury. He is not on Death Row for having murdered anyone.

He was convicted in 1993 of violating Ga. Code Ann. §16–5–40(d)(4) (2006). Sears and an accomplice kidnapped a woman in Georgia. She was killed in Kentucky. The fact of the lady's demise in Kentucky is a statutory aggravating circumstance, under Georgia law, warranting the imposition of a capital sentence. This follows a theory of felony murder.

Felony murder does not require the criminal defendant commit the fatal act, he need only be a perpetrator in a crime where a person died as a direct and proximate result of the underlying crime. He doesn't need to pull the trigger. For instance consider a store being robbed and a police officer becomes involved in a shootout with the criminals. The store clerk is killed by the officer's bullet. The robbers are guilty of Felony Murder. This is Black Letter Law and Demarcus Ali Sears is wrong thinking that the law is unfair.

That last sentence really goes to the heart of the case. The problem with the sentencing is the problem with Sears' cognitive function. More on that later.

Sears launched a categorical Eighth Amendment challenge to his conviction under the kidnapping theory, which the Court declined to address. The Court footnoted that any jurisdictional challenge for Georgia imposing the Death Sentence which occurred in Kentucky was not before them.

The Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

During the penalty phase of Sears' capital trial, the mitigation phase, the defense presented evidence that this crime was out of character for Sears who had been reared in a loving middle-class home. Several witnesses testified that an imposition of the Death Sentence would adversely affect them.

Anyone who watches crime drama knows that this wasn't a good idea. A 59 year old woman, wife, mother, grandmother, named Gloria Ann Wilbur, was raped and murdered. The convicted defendant's evidence is that his family and friends will be burdened by his execution. That dog don't hunt.

The State turned that argument on the defendant, boy howdy! Here's what they did:

With Sears, the prosecutor told the jury, “[w]e don’t have a deprived child from an inner city; a person who[m] society has turned its back on at an early age. But, yet, we have a person, privileged in every way, who has rejected every opportunity that was afforded him.”

I'd say "Oh Boy How Do You Do!" as an expression of amazement and surprise, but the Southern translation of that is "Boy Howdy!" Sears is portrayed as a typical Ohio youth seized with all the advantages that modern society can offer. But is that true? Yes he came from Ohio. Did Sears' attorney at trial portray a correct depiction of Sears? Did the attorney do a good job? That question is at the crux of the Court's analysis.

Mitigation means to lessen the severe impact of the offense, to partly excuse the crime. It does not mean anything like absolution, which would wash the crime away. Mitigation, that's a noun. Mitigate is a transitive verb. Did Sears' attorney at trial investigate his client? If you don't investigate your client how can you determine the best strategy to pursue in the mitigation, or conversely the worst?

The Trial Court which oversaw Sears' postconviction relief ruled that Sears had made a mitigation defense. That court demonstrated that Sears' mitigation defense was Constitutionally inadequate.

"After finding constitutionally deficient attorney performance under the framework we set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), the state post conviction court found itself unable to assess whether counsel’s inadequate investigation might have prejudiced Sears... Because Sears’ counsel did present some mitigation evidence during Sears’ penalty phase—but not the significant mitigation evidence a Constitutionally adequate investigation would have uncovered—the state court determined it could not speculate as to what the effect of additional evidence would have been."

So what did the Court say in Strickland v. Washington? Well, that was a case from 1984 where the Supreme Court reversed a Death Penalty case from Florida on Sixth Amendment Grounds.

The Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The abbreviated facts of Strickland have the defendant going on a 10 day crime spree during which time he stabbed 3 persons to death while committing various other crimes. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Strickland had received the effective Assistance of Counsel required by the Sixth Amendment.

Associate Justice O'Connor delivered the 8 - 1 opinion of the Court, Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall was the lone dissenter. Strickland provides us with a two part test for determining if trial counsel was effective or not.

A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or setting aside of a death sentence requires that the defendant show, first that counsel's performance was deficient and, second that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

Those are the two parts of Strickland test, the lawyer underperformed and the deficient lawyering deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Remember that fairness is the essence of Due Process of Law.

Back to Sears. After sentencing the case goes into postconviction relief mode where the judgments and sentencing of the trial court are appealed. During Sears' postconviction proceedings it turns out that the rosy depiction of Sears' upbringing was not based in fact.

His parents provided a combative home filled with their physically abusive relationship. They divorced while Sears was young. Sears had been sexually abused by an adolescent male cousin. His mother's pet name for her children was "Mother's little fuckers." Sears' father was verbally abusive. An art teacher recalled with shock Sears' father severely berating the child at a parent teacher conference. The father also disciplined Sears with age inappropriate military style drills. Sears struggled in school, demonstrating substantial behavior problems from a very young age. By the time Sears reached high school, he was described as severely learning disabled and as severely behaviorally handicapped.

It gets worse. Sears suffered significant frontal lobe abnormalities. Two different psychological experts testified that Sears had substantial deficits in mental cognition and reasoning—i.e., “problems with planning, sequencing and impulse control,” —as a result of several serious head injuries he suffered as a child, as well as drug and alcohol abuse.

Regardless of the cause of his brain damage, his scores on at least two standardized assessment tests placed him at or below the first percentile in several categories of cognitive function, making him among the most impaired individuals in the population in terms of ability to suppress competing impulses and conform behavior only to relevant stimuli.

The assessment also revealed that Sears’ ability to organize his choices, assign them relative weight and select among them in a deliberate way is grossly impaired. Sears lacks the capacity to make good choice, forget about wise choices.

From an etiological standpoint, one expert explained that Sears’ history is replete with multiple head trauma, substance abuse and traumatic experiences of the type expected to lead to these significant impairments.

Sears performed dismally on several of the forensic tests administered to him to assess his frontal lobe functioning. On the Stroop Word Interference Test, which measures response inhibition, id., at 36–37, 99.6% of those individuals in his cohort (which accounts for age, education, and background) performed better than he did.

On the Trail-Making B test, which also measures frontal lobe functioning, Sears performed at the first (and lowest) percentile. Based on these results, the expert’s first-hand observations, and an extensive review of Sears’ personal history, the expert’s opinion was unequivocal: There is clear and compelling evidence” that Sears has “pronounced frontal lobe pathology.

Sears' older brother was a criminal, a convicted drug dealer and user, who introduced Sears to a life of crime. These facts actually are consistent with a mitigation theory portraying Sears as an individual with diminished judgment and reasoning skills, who may have desired to follow in the footsteps of an older brother who had shut him out of his life.

The fact that some of the evidence may have been “hearsay” does not necessarily undermine its value—or its admissibility—for penalty phase purposes. The Court footnoted that "we have also recognized that reliable hearsay evidence that is relevant to a capital defendant’s mitigation defense should not be excluded by rote application of a state hearsay rule."

Competent counsel should have been able to turn some of the adverse evidence into a positive—perhaps in support of a cognitive deficiency mitigation theory. In particular, evidence of Sears’ grandiose self-conception and evidence of his magical thinking, were features, in another well credentialed expert’s view of a “profound personality disorder." This evidence might not have made Sears any more likable to the jury, but it might well have helped the jury understand Sears, and his horrendous acts—especially in light of his purportedly stable upbringing.

Because counsel failed to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, none of this evidence was known to Sears’ trial counsel. It emerged only during state postconviction relief.

The Trial Court noted that Sears' trial counsel was Constitutionally deficient as to the penalty phase investigation. In the Trial Court's view, the cursory nature of counsel’s investigation into mitigation evidence—“limited to one day or less, talking to witnesses selected by [Sears’] mother”—was “on its face . . . Constitutionally inadequate.”

The lawyer underperformed. Clearly the first prong of the Strickland test has been met. The Supreme Court was surprised at the Trial Court's analysis under the second prong of the Strickland test. Did the deficient lawyering prejudice the defense so much that the proceeding were not fair?

The per curiam opinion says "Although the court appears to have stated the proper prejudice standard, it did not correctly conceptualize how that standard applies to the circumstances of this case. The Trial Court asked whether “there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of his trial would have been different if [Sears'] counsel had done more investigation.”

The Trial Court reasoned that since some mitigation evidence was produced during the penalty phase that other cases where little or no mitigation evidence was produced were not on point. The Trial Court said it could not make a reasonable prediction as to whether Sears' defense was so prejudiced by Constitutionally deficient lawyering to render the mitigation phase Constitutionally infirm.

The Supreme Court finds two problems with the Trial Court's analysis. First the Trial Court placed undue reliance on the assumed reasonableness of counsel's mitigation theory, and curtailed its prejudice inquiry. Rather, the Supreme Court says "The court’s determination that counsel had conducted a constitutionally deficient mitigation investigation, should have, at the very least, called into question the reasonableness of this theory." The prejudice inquiry should be pursued.

The second problem was that when the Trial Court found a Constitutionally deficient mitigation then it should have, at minimum, called into question of the reasonableness of counsel's theory. Relying on Wiggins v. Smith, the Court said “counsel’s failure to uncover and present voluminous mitigating evidence at sentencing could not be justified as a tactical decision . . . because counsel had not ‘fulfill[ed] their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background."

One of the reasons I called this the most interesting per curiam decision that I've ever read is because it is rare for disagreements on the Court to break out into open skirmishes. Footnote nine takes a direct shot at Associate Justice Scalia.

9 Channeling powers of telepathy, JUSTICE SCALIA asserts that what the trial court actually decided in this case is that “Sears’ trial counsel presented a reasonable mitigation theory and offered evidence sufficient to support it, so the prejudice inquiry was more difficult—so difficult that Sears could not make the requisite showing.” Post, at 4. Such a highly favorable reading of the trial court’s analysis would be far more convincing had the trial court engaged with the evidence as JUSTICE SCALIA does. But it offered no such analysis in its opinion; indeed, it appears the court did not even conduct any real analysis, explaining that it was “impossible to know what effect” the evidence might have had on the jury.

The Court notices that Associate Justice Scalia chides them in his dissent. Associate Justice Scalia's rancor stems from the per curiam opinion's conclusion that the Trial Court made assumptions rather than judicial findings. The majority rebuffs that saying:

"But our point is that any finding with respect to the reasonableness of the mitigation theory counsel utilized—in this case, family impact—is in tension with the trial court’s unambiguous finding that counsel’s investigation was itself so unreasonable as to be facially unconstitutional. This point is plain in Williams: We rejected any suggestion that a decision to focus on one potentially reasonable trial strategy—in that case, petitioner’s voluntary confession—was “justified by a tactical decision” when “counsel did not fulfill their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background.” 529 U. S., at 396. A “tactical decision” is a precursor to concluding that counsel has developed a “reasonable” mitigation theory in a particular case. [emphasis added]"

Recall that when scrutinizing statutes the Court tells us that facial challenges are the most difficult to proove.  The standard for being facially infirm is the inconceivable standard.  It is inconceivable that under any circumstance the statute does not violate the Constitution.  Here the Court is telling us that it is inconceivable under any circumstance that counsel's investigation leads to a Constitutionally sound tactical theory.

The Supreme Court rejects the argument that the reasonableness of the theory is relevant when evaluating the impact of evidence that would have been available and which would likely have been introduced but for counsel's Constitutionally inadequate investigation. The standard is clear, if you are going to try a Capital Case you must look at every conceivable circumstance of the defendant's background. Do not get in a hurry with your theory and place all of your eggs in one basket.

Once the State has proven each and every element of the Capital offense beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and a guilty verdict has been rendered defense counsel's duty is to fully engage in the mitigation phase of the trial. That cannot be done where counsel is ignorant of the facts of the defendant's life and health.

Then there is Associate Justice Scalia, joined by Associate Justice Thomas. The dissent found no error of law in the proceedings below. Remanding this case, as the Court has done, is purposeless, according to Associate Justice Scalia. He says the Trial Court has already found that "no reasonable likelihood that the mitigation evidence...would have persuaded a jury to change its mind about the death sentence for this brutal rape-murder."

Associate Justice Scalia's thinking is troubling. The jury is not to have made up its mind as to the death sentence or any other punishment until after evidence is presented to them during the mitigation phase of the trial. They are sent to deliberate on that evidence. Their mind is to be made up during that deliberation. Associate Justice Scalia presumes the jurors have violated their oaths to keep their minds open on this issue until the sentencing part of the case is presented to them.

Associate Justice Scalia attacks the Court's implementation of the two pronged test from Strickland. Both the dissent and the per curiam opinion agree that the first part of the Strickland test was properly applied. The dispute is about the second part, whether the defense was prejudiced to the point of rendering the case unfair.

Scalia challenges the Court's finding that the Trial Court made two errors determining prejudice. As noted above, Scalia says the Trial Court made judicial findings and did not engage in making assumptions. Scalia gives deference to the Trial Court.

Then Scalia feathers his argument claiming the Court's second error is encased within the first. The Court claims, says Scalia, that the Trial Court limited its prejudice inquiry under Strickland where there was little or no mitigation evidence presented. The Supreme Court holds that the Trial Court erred by determining that presentation of some mitigation evidence foreclosed further prejudice inquiry. Scalia says that is not a fair reading of the case. "The state court did not hold that a defendant could never suffer prejudice whenever his counsel provided any mitigation evidence."

That appears to me as a distinction without a difference. During the postconviction phase of the case the defense is making its last arguments. Habeas Corpus relief does not provide for more than one bite at the apple. When the Appellate Court held that Sears' was not prejudiced by his attorney's ineffective assistance, they held that Sears, absent relief from the Federal Judiciary, could never suffer prejudice in this case.

A word about jurisdiction, the Court addressed the subject in footnote one. "Although this is a state-court decision, it resolved a federal issue on exclusively federal-law grounds. We therefore have jurisdiction. 28 U. S. C. §1257; see also Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___ (2010) (reviewing state postconviction decision raising Sixth Amendment question)."

TELEWORKING AND FLOOD INSURANCE UP NEXT ON THE HOUSE'S AGENDA

Congress heads back to work this week with two bills emerging from the Rules Committee. H.R. 1722, the Teleworks Improvement Act of 2010, was introduced by Maryland's Democratic Representative John Sarbanes.

This bill expands the options for Federal workers to work from home. Currently, the Washington Post reports, only 10% of government employees use the option. Rather than shut down government when severe weather strikes, and that's not rare in D.C., offices can stay open remotely. According to Sarbanes, the Washington Post said, the government saved about $30 Million dollars a day last year when remote workers were able to do their jobs, despite D.C. being paralyzed by a February blizzard. Lynn Jenkins voted against the bill.

The Rules Committee is scheduled to take up H.R. 1722 at 5:00 p.m. today. When the bill emerges from the Rules Committee it takes its second journey to the floor of the House of Representatives. It failed to garner a 2/3 majority vote back on May 6th, although it clearly had a majority. The tally on roll call 251 was 268 yeas to 147 nays. The supermajority of 66% was required because H.R. 1722 advanced via Rule XV:

RULE XV

BUSINESS IN ORDER ON SPECIAL DAYS

Suspensions

1. (a) A rule may not be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present. The Speaker may not entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of Congress.

When H.R. 1722 returns to the floor it will be under a Rule which will require only a simple majority. H.R. 1722 can and will save taxpayers far more than it will cost, it keeps the wheels moving when offices would otherwise have to close, and it will attract more workers to civil service. This bill makes sense.

H.R. 5114, is the Flood Insurance Priorities Act of 2010. This bill was introduced by California's Democratic Representative Maxine Waters. This bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 [NIFA] extending the National Flood Insurance Program and the Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe Repetitive Loss Properties.

H.R. 5114 increases the maximum aggregate amount of insurance coverage for residential and nonresidential building. The bill amends the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA) to delay, for a five-year period, the effective date for the mandatory purchase of flood insurance for certain new flood hazard areas not previously designated as having special flood hazards (with "100-year floodplains").

NIFA is amended to set forth a five-year phase-in of flood insurance rates for newly mapped areas not previously designated as having special flood hazards.

Employing sound business like practices H.R. 5114 directs the FEMA Administrator to implement this Act in a manner that will not materially weaken the financial position of the national flood insurance program or increase the risk of financial liability to federal taxpayers.

It helps people get covered immediately by waiving the 30-day delay (waiting period) for the effective date of flood insurance contracts when the initial purchase of flood insurance coverage is connected with the purchase or other transfer of the property to be covered, regardless of whether a loan is involved in the purchase or transfer transaction. Limits such waiver, however, to instances when the initial purchase of coverage is made within 30 days after the purchase or other transfer of the property.

Revises the current waiver of the 30-day waiting period for the initial purchase of flood insurance coverage in connection with the making, increasing, extension, or renewal of a loan to limit it to instances when the purchase is made within 30 days after the loan transaction.

Not only the wealthy need apply, this is a plan available to the poor. It requires flood insurance regulations to permit certain low-income policyholders (families whose income level is at or below 200% of the poverty line) to pay insurance premiums in monthly installments.

The bill has teeth. FDPA is amended to subject lenders to civil monetary penalties for requiring, in connection with any loan, the purchase of flood insurance coverage under NIFA, or for purchasing such coverage, in an amount exceeding the minimum mandatory amount.

Increases from $350 to $2,000 the maximum civil monetary penalty per violation against a regulated lending institution or enterprise. Increases from $100,000 to $1 million the total amount of such penalties assessed against any single regulated lending institution or enterprise during any calendar year, unless the total of such penalties in any three (or more) of the immediately preceding five calendar years was $1 million (in which case there is no limit).

Yet it is fair because it prohibits imposition of any civil penalty on a regulated lending institution or enterprise that has made a good faith effort to comply with FDPA requirements or for any non-material violation of such requirements.

Finally, this legislation is forward looking. H.R. 5114 amends FDPA to subject lenders to civil monetary penalties for requiring, in connection with any loan, the purchase of flood insurance coverage under NIFA, or for purchasing such coverage, in an amount exceeding the minimum mandatory amount.

Increases from $350 to $2,000 the maximum civil monetary penalty per violation against a regulated lending institution or enterprise. Increases from $100,000 to $1 million the total amount of such penalties assessed against any single regulated lending institution or enterprise during any calendar year, unless the total of such penalties in any three (or more) of the immediately preceding five calendar years was $1 million (in which case there is no limit).

Prohibits imposition of any civil penalty on a regulated lending institution or enterprise that has made a good faith effort to comply with FDPA requirements or for any non-material violation of such requirements.

The Rules Committee meets tomorrow to consider H.R. 5114.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 27 - SHE'S AGAINST FAIRNESS IN POLITICAL SPEECH (MEANING ONLY THE MEGA RICH NEED PARTICIPATE!)

This is Lynn Jenkins, she doesn't represent us, and doesn't like the Fairness Doctrine

The F.C.C. issues licenses to commercial broadcasters to use particular band segments or frequencies. These license holders do not own the airwaves. They hold them in trust for the public.

In 1949, in an attempt to dictate fairness in the use of the airwaves, the F.C.C. promulgated rules known as the Fairness Doctrine. This required licensees to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the F.C.C's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

In 1981 the F.C.C. refined the Fairness Doctrine, imposing on licensees two conditions. First was the duty to provide adequate coverage to public issues. Secondly licensees were under a duty to ensure that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.

In the case of Red Lion Broadcasting v. F.C.C. Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the application of the fairness doctrine with respect to a particular broadcast. The companion case United States v. Radio Television News Directors Association, challenged the fairness doctrine's requirements concerning broadcasts.  "Broadcast" is an F.C.C. term of art defining radio or television transmissions intended to be sent to and received by the general public.  Broadcasts are limited to certain frequencies.

The Supreme Court rendered a unanimous opinion delivered by Associate Justice Byron "Whizzer" White. Associate Justice Douglas did not participate. Associate Justice White said:

In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional.

Always read the footnotes, the Court's final footnote, footnote 28 is instructive. In sidestepping questions the Court did not need to reach they said:

[ Footnote 28] We need not deal with the argument that even if there is no longer a technological scarcity of frequencies limiting the number of broadcasters, there nevertheless is an economic scarcity in the sense that the Commission could or does limit entry to the broadcasting market on economic grounds and license no more stations than the market will support. Hence, it is said, the fairness doctrine or its equivalent is essential to satisfy the claims of those excluded and of the public generally. A related argument, which we also put aside, is that quite apart from scarcity of frequencies, technological or economic, Congress does not abridge freedom of speech or press by legislation directly or indirectly multiplying the voices and views presented to the public through time sharing, fairness doctrines, or other devices which limit or dissipate the power of those who sit astride the channels of communication with the general public. Cf. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 when President Reagan staffed the F.C.C. with Commissioners committed to deregulation. Red Lion provides authority for either a newly staffed F.C.C. or, preferably, the Congress to reestablish the doctrine.  Has anything good ever come of Republican deregulation?

Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan appointees led to the demise of its corollary, the Personal Attack Rule. Additionally, the Zapple Doctrine, an additional interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters to provide supporters of a candidate with an opportunity to respond when the broadcaster has allowed his or her opponent’s supporters to use or purchase time on the station, is presumably no longer enforced by the Commission.

All of that comes as good news to F.A.I.R.'s resident thinker, Kris Kobach. He is running for Secretary of State in Kansas and working the airwaves on a Kansas City talk radio station. Fortunately for Kobach the appearance of impropriety standard only applies to his actions as an attorney, not as a political candidate.

Candidate Kris Kobach appears to have a free forum for espousing his views, that's fair?

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. F.C.C. overruled the case  permitting limiting corporate cash in political speech, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Congress. That means that massive amounts of corporate cash will be infused into America's electoral process, effectively drowning out the voices of the people.

Now Lynn Jenkins thinks that radio station owners own the airwaves and ignores that F.C.C. license holders only have the privilege to use those airwaves in trust. That is an essential holding in Red Lion Broadcasting v. F.C.C., "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." 

Lynn Jenkins co-sponsored H.R. 226, an Act To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

The text of that bill reads:

"Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985)."

If Lynn Jenkins had her way you'd only be allowed to be heard if you had FAT CAT RESOURCES.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE A SOUL TO SAVE OR A BUTT TO KICK AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN VOICE IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS. IT IS GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, NOT OF THE CORPORATIONS, FOR THE CORPORATIONS, AND BY THE CORPORATIONS.

We need a Constitutional Amendment permitting only registered voters to engage in political speech.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 26 - SHE FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE REAL COST OF NOT HAVING HEALTH CARE REFORM.

The Cost of Not Having Health Insurance

The real cost of health care reform, the cost we need not pay, is 80 lives lost. 

From the Congressional Record came this stunning report. 

[Congressional Record: November 4, 2009 (House)]

[Page H12350-H12352]

From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:cr04no09-135]

THE COST OF NOT HAVING HEALTH CARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) is recognized
for 60 minutes.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, our

[[Page H12351]]

President, often pardoned people who had been convicted of treason. You may wonder why he did that. The answer is he saw death all around him in the Civil War, and he wanted to make sure he did nothing to add to it, so he pardoned people who had been found guilty of the most grievous crime one could commit in this country simply because he loved life.

In the same way, I would like to think whether I leave here after 2 years or 20 years, that there will be no blood on my hands. That is why I am against the war in Iraq, that is why I am against the war in Afghanistan, and that is why I am so much in favor of health care reform that saves lives in America.

We had a different kind of President for 8 years recently, and we had a different kind of administration, an administration that was willing to bear any degree of suffering and pain as long as it was somebody else's. If you were homeless, it was your fault; if you were jobless, it was your fault; and if you died because you had no health insurance, that was your fault.

Now that administration is out of power. We, the American people, removed them because they abused it. But they have left behind in the House and in the Senate people who feel much the way that they did.Recently, a Harvard study published in a peer review journal, the American Journal of Public Health, announced that 44,789 Americans die every single year because they have no health insurance.In America today, if you find two people who are physically identical, same race, same age, same gender, same smoking habits, same weight, if you find two people who are physically identical, and one of them has insurance and the other one does not, then the one without insurance, that American who has the misfortune simply not to have health coverage, that American is 40 percent more likely to die.

This bill that we are considering now to reform health care in America would end that. It covers 96 percent of all Americans. It ends this grievous national tragedy where, day after day, week after week, month after month, 122 of us die every single day because they have no health insurance.

Now, I am sure that if we learned that al Qaeda was going to launch an attack on the United States and kill 44,789 Americans at any time next year, I am sure that we would do anything in our power to prevent that. I submit to you we should do the same about this. We should do exactly the same here, because we face the same threat. It is a less visible threat, it has gone on for generations, but it is a threat nevertheless. If you don't let people see the doctor, then a certain number of them are going to die.

To bring this point home in the face of united opposition by that side of the aisle, what we have done is something very simple. The Urban Institute has published the number of uninsured people in each district, each congressional district in this country. The American Journal of Public Health has told us what percentage of those uninsured people will die next year because they have no health insurance. So what we have done is very simple. We have taken one number and the other number, and through the magic of multiplication, we know how many of those people will die, and I think it is time we called attention to that.

So what we have done is for each Republican Member, since they are united in opposition to this bill, and apparently proud of it, for each Republican Member we have identified in each district the number of dead.  They are as follows:

Alabama District 1, Congressman Jo Bonner, 114 dead.
Alabama District 3, Congressman Mike Rogers, 88 dead.
Alabama District 4, Congressman Robert Aderholt, 114 dead.
Alabama District 6, Congressman Spencer Bachus, 69 dead.
Alaska, Congressman Don Young, 128 dead.
Arizona, District 2, Congressman Trent Franks, 150 dead.
Arizona District 3, Congressman John Shadegg, 132 dead.
Arizona District 6, Congressman Jeff Flake, 140 dead.
Arkansas District 3, Congressman John Boozman, 151 dead.
California District 2, Congressman Wally Herger, 139 dead.
California District 3, Congressman Daniel Lungren, 68 dead.
California District 4, Congressman Tom McClintock, 77 dead.
California District 19, Congressman George Radanovich, 124 dead.
California District 21, Congressman Devin Nunes, 159 dead.
California District 22, Congressman Kevin McCarthy, 110 dead.
California District 24, Congressman Elton Gallegly, 75 dead.
California District 25, Congressman Howard McKeon, 124 dead.
California District 26, Congressman David Dreier, 85 dead.
California District 40, Congressman Edward Royce, 125 dead.
California District 41, Congressman Jerry Lewis, 144 dead.
California District 42, Congressman Gary Miller, 74 dead.
California District 44, Congressman Ken Calvert, 150 dead.
California District 45, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, 181 dead.
California District 46, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, 78 dead.
California District 48, Congressman John Campbell, 74 dead.
California District 49, Congressman Darrell Issa, 151 dead.
California District 50, Congressman Brian Bilbray, 103 dead.
California District 52, Congressman Duncan Hunter, 84 dead.
Colorado District 5, Congressman Doug Lamborn, 107 dead.
Colorado District 6, Congressman Mike Coffman, 69 dead.
Delaware, Congressman Mike Castle, 90 dead.
Florida District 1, Congressman Jeff Miller, 130 dead.
Florida District 4, Congressman Ander Crenshaw, 116 dead.
Florida District 5, Congressman Ginny Brown-Waite, 200 dead.
Florida District 6, Congressman Cliff Stearns, 152 dead.
Florida District 7, Congressman John Mica, 143 dead.
Florida District 9, Congressman Gus Bilirakis, 129 dead.
Florida District 10, Congressman Bill Young, 138 dead.
Florida District 12, Congressman Adam Putnam, 133 dead.
Florida District 13, Congressman Vern Buchanan, 160 dead.
Florida District 14, Congressman Connie Mack, 159 dead.
Florida District 15, Congressman Bill Posey, 152 dead.
Florida District 16, Congressman Thomas Rooney, 165 dead.
Florida District 18, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 199 dead.
Florida District 21, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, 195 dead.
Florida District 25, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, 195 dead.
Georgia District 1, Congressman Jack Kingston, 123 dead.
Georgia District 3, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, 102 dead.
Georgia District 6, Congressman Tom Price, 100 dead.
Georgia District 7, Congressman John Linder, 156 dead.
Georgia District 9, Congressman Nathan Deal, 159 dead.
Georgia District 10, Congressman Paul Broun, 120 dead.
Georgia District 11, Congressman Phil Gingrey, 113 dead.
Idaho District 2, Congressman Michael Simpson, 126 dead.
Illinois District 6, Congressman Peter Roskam, 73 dead.
Illinois District 10, Congressman Mark Kirk, 55 dead.
Illinois District 13, Congresswoman Judy Biggert, 45 dead.
Illinois District 15, Congressman Timothy Johnson, 67 dead.
Illinois District 16, Congressman Donald Manzullo, 69 dead.
Illinois District 18, Congressman Aaron Schock, 62 dead.
Illinois District 19, Congressman John Shimkus, 67 dead.
Indiana District 3, Congressman Mark Souder, 119 dead.
Indiana District 4, Congressman Steve Buyer, 85 dead.
Indiana District 5, Congressman Dan Burton, 73 dead.
Indiana District 6, Congressman Mike Pence, 104 dead.
Iowa District 4, Congressman Tom Latham, 54 dead.
Iowa District 5, Congressman Steve King, 59 dead.
[[Page H12352]]
Kansas District 1, Congressman Jerry Moran, 86 dead.
Kansas District 2, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, 80 dead.
Kansas District 4, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, 87 dead.
Kentucky District 1, Congressman Ed Whitfield, 113 dead.
Kentucky District 2, Brett Guthrie, 102 dead.
Kentucky District 4, Geoff Davis, Congressman, 83 dead.
Kentucky District 5, Congressman Harold Rogers, 130 dead.
Louisiana District 1, Congressman Steve Scalise, 111 dead.
Louisiana District 2, Congressman Joseph Cao, 98 dead.
Louisiana District 4, Congressman John Fleming, 115 dead.
Louisiana District 5, Congressman Rodney Alexander, 132 dead.
Louisiana District 6, Congressman Bill Cassidy, 105 dead.
Louisiana District 7, Congressman Charles Boustany, 112 dead.
Maryland District 6, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, 68 dead.
Michigan District 2, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, 71 dead.
Michigan District 3, Congressman Vernon Ehlers, 76 dead.
Michigan District 4, Congressman David Camp, 83 dead.
Michigan District 6, Congressman Fred Upton, 87 dead.
Michigan District 8, Mike Rogers, Congressman, 63 dead.
Michigan District 10, Candice Miller, Congresswoman, 64 dead.
Michigan District 11, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, 64 dead.
Minnesota District 2, Congressman John Kline, 44 dead.
Minnesota District 3, Congressman Erik Paulsen, 43 dead.
Minnesota District 6, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 50 dead.
Mississippi District 3, Congressman Gregg Harper, 117 dead.
Missouri District 2, Congressman Todd Akin, 48 dead.
Missouri District 6, Congressman Sam Graves, 74 dead.
Missouri District 7, Congressman Roy Blunt, 120 dead.
Missouri District 8, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, 110 dead.
Missouri District 9, Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer, 78 dead.
Montana, Congressman Denny Rehberg, 179 dead.
Nebraska District 1, Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, 61 dead.
Nebraska District 2, Congressman Lee Terry, 68 dead.
Nebraska District 3, Congressman Adrian Smith, 69 dead.
Nevada District 2, Congressman Dean Heller, 172 dead.
New Jersey District 2, Congressman Frank LoBiondo, 71 dead.
New Jersey District 4, Congressman Chris Smith, 65 dead.
New Jersey District 5, Congressman Scott Garrett, 52 dead.
New Jersey District 7, Congressman Leonard Lance, 45 dead.
New Jersey District 11, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, 44 dead.
New York District 3, Congressman Peter King, 42 dead.
New York District 26, Congressman Christopher Lee, 40 dead.
North Carolina District 3, Congressman Walter Jones, 100 dead.
North Carolina District 5, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, 97 dead.
North Carolina District 6, Congressman Howard Coble, 103 dead.
North Carolina District 9, Congresswoman Sue Myrick, 82 dead.
North Carolina District 10, Congressman Patrick McHenry, 101 dead.
Ohio District 2, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, 69 dead.
Ohio District 3, Congressman Michael Turner, 78 dead.
Ohio District 4, Congressman Jim Jordan, 74 dead.
Ohio District 5, Congressman Robert Latta, 59 dead.
Ohio District 7, Congressman Steve Austria, 73 dead.
Ohio District 8, Congressman John Boehner, 70 dead.
Ohio District 12, Congressman Patrick Tiberi, 66 dead.
Ohio District 14, Congressman Steven LaTourette, 58 dead.
Oklahoma District 1, Congressman John Sullivan, 125 dead.
Oklahoma District 3, Congressman Frank Lucas, 128 dead.
Oklahoma District 4, Congressman Tom Cole, 121 dead.
Oklahoma District 5, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, 155 dead.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 25 - SHE VOTES NO TO JOBS, EDUCATION, CLEANING UP THE GULF OIL SPILL, HIGHWAYS, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NOT SPENDING BILLIONS, AND NO TO SAVING MONEY!!!

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

H.R. 4899 is the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, It originally passed the House March 24th on roll call 186, Lynn Jenkins voted no, and was sent to the Senate. It passed the Senate with an Amendment on May 27th in record vote number 176, with the margin being 67 to 82, Senators Brownback and Roberts voting against the measure.

There ended up being 5 separate Amendments to H.R. 4899, the question on the Amendment being divided into 5 votes. The first part of the Amendment was agreed to in a "deem passed" inclusion into the Rule permitting the House to consider the bill. That rule was H. Res. 1500 which passed the House with a margin of 215 to 210 on roll call vote 428. Lynn Jenkins voted no.

Following is a Summary of the Amendments from the Rules Committee. See, http://www.rules.house.gov/111/AmndmentsSubmitted/hr4899/111_hr4899_summaryofamendment.pdf.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT #1

The amendment pays for settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar and Pigford v. Vilsack class action lawsuits. Second, the amendment will allow local Workforce Investment Boards to expand summer jobs programs that were funded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and support over 350,000 jobs for youth ages 14 to 24 through summer employment programs. The amendment would make two changes to title IV, the “Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010,” of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. First, it would distribute the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) and National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement (National Corridor) program funding so that each State receives a share equal to the greater of either (1) the amount of PNRS and National Corridor program funding that the State received under the HIRE Act or (2) the amount of PNRS and National Corridor funding that the State receives under this Act. The provision authorizes such sums as may be necessary from the Highway Trust Fund to provide these amounts. Second, the amendment would distribute “additional” highway formula funds (which the bill makes available in lieu of additional congressionally-designated projects) among all of the highway formula programs rather than among just six formula programs. Third, the amendment incorporates the President’s 2011 Budget proposal to require a minimum 10-year term for Grantor-Retained Annuity Trusts. It also would require that the value of the remainder interest must be greater than zero and that the annuity not decrease during the first 10 years of the GRAT term. Finally, in 2008, Congress enacted a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for the production of biofuel from cellulosic feedstocks in order to encourage the development of new production capacity for biofuels that are not derived from food source materials. This provision would limit eligibility for the tax credit to fuels that are not highly corrosive.

Cobell v. Salazar is a class action lawsuit brought against the United States by Native American representatives alleging massive mismanagement of funds held in trust by the government for American Indians. 

Pigford v. Vilsack is a case which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the parties to settle.  Essentially the case is now about attorneys fees. The original issue in Pigford dealt with racial discrimination against Black farmers by the USDA's farm loan program. Pigford was a class action lawsuit, which proceeded to arbitration, in short Pigford  had some successful claims and some unsuccessful claims.  The Court ruled that separate claims need to be treated, for attorneys fees purposes, as separate trials and that the legal and factual claims need be sufficiently interrelated for fees to be awarded on the unsuccessful claims.

A Grantor-Retained Annuity Trust [GRAT] is a financial mechanism commonly employed to make large gifts to family members without the receipient having to pay gift taxes.   In a GRAT the person making the gift gets to hold onto the property for a term of years.  This allows the grantor to retain a qualified interest that is equal to the property transferred, resulting in a gift valuation of zero to the remainder-interest parties, the receipients. The hope is that there will be an upswing in the market, allowing the receipients to take home excess returns (above the annuity returns to the grantor) without the imposition of a gift tax. This provisions mandates a term of at least 10 years.

Cellulosic biofuel is ethanol made from wood, grasses, or the nonedible parts of plants. This is an important new Green Source of fuel.

Lynn Jenkins voted against summer jobs and against Kansas getting money for highways!

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT #2 

The amendment adds $10 billion for an Education Jobs Fund, $4.95 billion for Pell Grants, $701 million for border security, $180 million for innovative technology energy loans, $163 million for schools on military installations, $142 million in additional Gulf Coast oil spill funding, $50 million in emergency food assistance, and $16.5 million to build a new soldier processing center at Fort Hood. In order to hold the total amount to the President’s requested level over a ten-year period, the amendment includes $11.7 billion in rescissions from programs that no longer require the funding, have sufficient funds on hand, or do not need the funding this year or next, and $4.7 billion in savings from changes to mandatory programs. In total, the amendment saves the Federal Government $493 million over ten years compared to the President’s request. The amendment also provides $538 million for program integrity investments that are proven to produce 1½ times that in savings.

Lynn Jenkins voted against Education, against cleaning up the Gulf Oil Spill, against Emergency Food Assistance, against a new Soldier Processing Center, against NOT SPENDING $11.7 BILLION, against SAVING $4.7 BILLION, against SAVING $493 MILLION over the next decade, and against $807 MILLION in future savings through program integrity.

Spill Baby Spill - Don't Count on Lynn Jenkins to help clean up the mess

Amendment 2 passed with a margin of 239 to 182 on roll call vote 430. Lynn Jenkins voted no.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT #3

The amendment would strike military funding for Afghanistan from the bill.

Amendment 3 failed to pass by a margin of 25 to 276 on roll call 431. Lynn Jenkins voted with the majority.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT #4

The amendment would begin to end the war in Afghanistan by preventing an escalation of troops in Afghanistan and by limiting funding to the safe withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Amendment 4 failed to pass by a margin of 100 to 321. Lynn Jenkins voted with the majority.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT #5

The amendment would require the president to present Congress with 1) a new National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan by January 31, 2011 and 2) a plan by April 4, 2011 on the safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including a timeframe for the completion of the redeployment. The amendment also requires Congress to vote by July 2011 if it wants to allow the obligation and expenditure of funds for Afghanistan in a manner that is not consistent with the president's announced policy of December 2009 to begin to drawdown troops by July 2011. The amendment also requires quarterly reports to Congress on the status of the plan submitted to Congress and strengthens and expands oversight of private contractors in Afghanistan to deal more effectively with corruption, waste, fraud and abuse. Last, the amendment clarifies that no part of the amendment shall limit the president's ability to attack al Qaeda, gather and share intelligence with allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or modify U.S. military strategy on-the-ground over the period of redeployment.

Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 162 to 260 on roll call 433. Lynn Jenkins voted with the majority.

 
Amendments 3, 4, and 5 indicate that the Congress wants to put an end to the Middle East Wars Without End in general, and America's longest ever war, the one in Afghanistan in particular. These three Amendments are an opening volley in the Presidential campaign of 2012. It is interesting to note that the two Members of Congress who consistently vote for less spending, Republicans Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona split on these votes. Paul was with the minority and Flake with the majority on Amendments 3, 4, and 5. 

It is also interesting to note that Lynn Jenkins voted against spending the money for our troops in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, then voted to keep the money in.  Well ain't she good at having her cake and eating it too!

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 24 - SHE WAS FOR EARMARKS BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST THEM

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Lynn Jenkins was going full steam ahead with her Congressional Earmarks before she took the pledge, for political convenience.  Lynn Jenkins hasn't always practiced what she preached.  

KTKA, the ABC affiliate in Topeka reported that Lynn Jenkins was being taken to task by the Club for Growth.  Lynn Jenkins had signed a pledge against earmarks in her 2008 race against Jim Ryun in the primary and Nancy Boyda in the general election.  You can read the KTKA story at: http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/apr/23/earmark_critic_lynn_jenkins_criticized_over_earmar/ .  The Club for Growth is a fiscally conservative, limited government espousing, Tea Party leaning organization with a PAC.  I'm not normally a gambler, but I bet Lynn Jenkins won't be getting a check from the Club for Growth. The Club for growth changed their position, something they have in common with Lynn Jenkins, and said they were sorry because Lynn Jenkins only promised to restrict her earmarks, not swear off of them.   See, http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/apr/24/group_apologizes_wrongfully_criticizing_jenkins_ov/?more_like_this.

On April 1, 2010 Lynn Jenkins saw the writing on the wall and took the anti earmark pledge. See, http://cjonline.com/news/state/2010-03-31/gop_members_swear_off_earmarks. Only time will tell if that's a real deal or an April Fools remark.

Here is her handiwork, as reported by the Congressional Record.

[Congressional Record: July 8, 2009 (Extensions)]

[Page E1672-E1673]

From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:cr08jy09-34]

EARMARK DECLARATION

HON. LYNN JENKINS of kansas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership

standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2010 Agriculture

Appropriations bill, H.R. 2997:

Earmark: Polymer Research at Pittsburg State University

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, RE/FA Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Pittsburg State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 1701 S Broadway, Pittsburg, KS 66762

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,500,000 to make

contributions in the use of cellulosic fibers of wheat straw, corn

stalks, and grasses (all grown in abundance in Kansas) to convert them

to fillers for a new family of plastics that would be cheaper and

require less energy to manufacture, and also be more friendly to the

environment. This is a good fit at Pittsburg State University due to

their certified program in Plastics Engineering Technology. Continued

Federal endorsement and funding for these activities will build upon

their past successes in the area of polymeric oils for use in

polyurethanes. If the United States is to become independent of foreign

oil producers, then we must pursue industrial sustainability by

continuous innovation, improvement and use of clean technology to

reduce pollution levels and consumption of resources. At the Kansas

Polymer Research Center, they can apply knowledge of biochemistry to

develop processes to produce new bio-based products more efficiently

than the chemical processes we have been using.

Earmark: Wheat Genetic Research

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, SRG Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas State University

Address of Requesting Entity: Anderson Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $240,000 to map and

sequence the wheat genome through the Wheat Genetic and Genomic

Resources Center (WGGRC). The WGGRC gene bank currently maintains

12,000 lines and these collections are continuously expanding as the

Center acquires, develops, and distributes new genetic and genomic

resources to facilitate wheat genetics, genomics, and breeding

research. Kansas State University and Kansas wheat producers have

already made an investment of almost $1.0 million towards the purchase

of a DNA sequencer and a robot for arraying and printing of DNA

filters. This request will collect, conserve, and distribute wheat

genetic and genomic resources; develop improved germ plasm; develop

genetic stocks; develop genomic resources; and support training and outreach.

Earmark: Grain Sorghum

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, SRG Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas State University and Texas

Tech University

Address of Requesting Entity: Anderson Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, and

2500 Broadway, Lubbock, TX 79409

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $515,000 to permit the

Great Plains Sorghum Improvement and Utilization Center (GPSIUC) to

expand existing research and educational programs, particularly in

genetic improvement and sorghum utilization. Sorghum is one of the most

drought tolerant crops in the world, offering many potential advantages

as a food, feed and bioenergy crop to the rural economies of the Great Plains.

Earmark: Water Conservation

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, SRG Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas State University

Address of Requesting Entity: Anderson Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506

Description of Request: To provide an earmark of $69,000 to help: (1)

agricultural producers, both crop and livestock, (2) rural communities

in water-short areas; and (3) state and regional agencies to implement

economical technologies and policies that will result in water

conservation and prolong the life of the Ogallala aquifer in the face

of increasing competition for declining aquifers and over-allocated

surface waters. This effort is critical to the economic viability of

western Kansas. In many parts of western Kansas, freshwater from both

surface and groundwater is increasingly in short supply. Drought,

aquifer and surface water depletion, and population shifts have

stretched community and regional water supplies to their limits. As

groundwater supplies decline or become cost prohibitive, better

management of water through conservation, recycling, and treatment of

poor quality water for secondary uses becomes even more important.

Earmark: Preharvest Food Safety

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, SRG Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas State University

Address of Requesting Entity: Anderson Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506

Description of Request: To provide an earmark of $142,000 to expand

the University's investigations into (1) the ecology of Salmonella in

beef cattle, (2) antimicrobial resistance in cattle, and (3)

agroinformatics, and (4) animal health diagnostics. These four areas of

research have great overlap and synergy and will allow Kansas State

University to better identify emerging threats of food-borne and

zoonotic diseases associated with food-producing animals. Currently,

Kansas State University has an ongoing USDA special project on the

ecology of E. coli O157:H7 in beef cattle and the environment. This

bacterial organism is a major cause of food-borne illnesses in humans.

Earmark: National Agriculture Biosecurity Center

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries and

Expenses Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas State University

Address of Requesting Entity: Anderson Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506

[[Page E1673]]

Description of Request: To provide an earmark of $259,000 to fund the

National Agriculture Biosecurity Center (NABC) for Phase III efforts

for the development, enhancement and delivery of a targeted National

Animal Health Laboratories Network (NAHLN) technical training support

program. The funding is required to: (1) build and populate a lessons

learned/best practices from NAHLN labs exercises and events; (2) expand

animal health diagnostic screening capabilities regionally, including

endemic and emerging pathogens (viruses, bacteria, and parasites) as

well as prions such as BSE; (3) increase the testing capability and

capacity of the Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (KSVDL)

in support of the NAHLN mission by conducting research on new

methodologies and standardized operating procedures for enhancing and

improving the efficiency of NAHLN equipment and laboratories; and (4)

develop a training strategy framework for NAHLN laboratories.

Now before anyone gets all excited about Lynn Jenkins' commitment to Agriculture, Pittsburgh State or Kansas State take a look at roll call 761.  Lynn Jenkins voted against the conference report, final passage, of H.R. 2997.  She voted against her own earmarks. She was for funding Agriculture and her earmarks before she was against it, she voted for the bill on roll call 510.

[Congressional Record: July 24, 2009 (Extensions)]

[Page E1957]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr24jy09-134]

EARMARK DECLARATION

HON. LYNN JENKINS

of kansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership

standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information

regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY2010 Transportation/HUD,

H.R. 3288:

Earmark: Interstate 70 Viaduct Realignment, Topeka, KS

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number H.R. 3288

Account: Federal Highway Administration/Interstate Maintenance

Discretionary

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas Department of Transportation

Address of Requesting Entity: 700 SW Harrison, Topeka, KS 66603

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,000,000 to assist

with the completion of a planning report to address deficiencies,

increase safety standards along this stretch of I-70 Highway and

determine the best and safest route through the heart of the City of

Topeka. To make this stretch of I-70 safer, the road needs to be

widened and straightened out--without the sharp curve.

Earmark: U.S. Highway 69 Corridor Study, Bourbon and Crawford

Counties, KS

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: Federal Highway Administration/Surface Transportation

Priorities

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas Department of Transportation

Address of Requesting Entity: 700 SW Harrison, Topeka, KS 66603

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to continue

the work of planning, engineering, design and environmental studies to

widen U.S. Highway 69 to a 4-lane divided highway linking the Kansas

City area (Johnson County) to Interstate 44 in Oklahoma. Highway 69 is

a critical connecting link between Kansas City and I-44. The Crawford

County and Bourbon County section is one of the busiest two-lane

highways in the State of Kansas and has a very high rate of accidents

and fatalities. Widening of this highway is also essential to the

continued economic vitality of Southeast Kansas. Funding is needed for

completion of environmental assessments and other preliminary

engineering work that must be completed prior to actual construction.

Folks, there's a pattern here and I hope Topeka, Bourbon County, and Crawford County didn't get too appreciative of Lynn Jenkins' earmarks for them.  That's right, she voted against the bill and her own earmarks again! On roll call 637 she voted against passage and on roll call 949 she voted against the conference report.

[Congressional Record: July 24, 2009 (Extensions)]

[Page E1989-E1990]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr24jy09-213]

EARMARK DECLARATION

HON. LYNN JENKINS

of kansas

in the house of representatives

Friday, July 24, 2009

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership

standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information

regarding earmarks I received as part of

[[Page E1990]]

the FY2010 Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill, FIR 3293:

Earmark: University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS for facilities and

equipment

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (FIRSA)--Health

Facilities and Services

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Kansas

Address of Requesting Entity: 230 Strong Hall, Lawrence, KS 66047

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,500,000 to fulfill

the University's mission of being a leader in healthcare and drug

development. The University of Kansas Cancer Center is transforming

cancer research and care by linking our innovative approach to drug

discovery, delivery and development to their nationally-accredited

patient care. To ensure that their cancer advancements reach patients

as close to home as possible, the University of Kansas Cancer Center

collaborates with regional cancer research and care professionals

through the Midwest Cancer Alliance. The University of Kansas Cancer

Center plans to attract 19 new basic, translational, and clinical

cancer researchers by 2011. These scholar recruits will only come to

the University of Kansas Cancer Center if state-of-the-art research

facilities and equipment are available on the Medical Center campus in

Kansas City and the Drug Discovery campus in Lawrence. Currently, the

Cancer Center plans to renovate 170,000 square feet and construct

98,200 square feet of laboratory space for cancer researchers with

funding provided by other sources. Funds appropriated by Congress will

be used for anticipated equipment costs.

You should have seen this coming KU, she voted against the bill and her earmarks on roll call 646.  Lynn Jenkins continues to be consistently inconsistent.

[Congressional Record: July 31, 2009 (Extensions)]

[Page E2104-E2105]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr31jy09-44]

EARMARK DECLARATION

HON. LYNN JENKINS

of kansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership

standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information

regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY2010 Defense

Appropriations Bill, H.R. 3326:

Earmark: Army Command and General Staff College Leadership Training

Program

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

ill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: OM,A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Leavenworth, KS

Address of Requesting Entity: 881 McClellan Ave., Fort Leavenworth,

KS 66027

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 to continue

a partnership with Kansas State University to provide an M.A. and Ph.D.

in Security Studies, and an M.S. and Ed.D. in Educational Leadership to

military students and faculty at the Command and General Staff College,

Fort Leavenworth. The program was developed in close coordination with

senior faculty at CGSC. This program responds to a need identified by

Fort Leavenworth in an area of expertise at Kansas State University.

Earmark: Repair Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning System at Ft.

Leavenworth

Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: OM,A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Leavenworth, KS

Address of Requesting Entity: 881 McClellan Ave, Fort Leavenworth, KS

66027

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,796,000 to replace a

failing HVAC system in the Community Center located in Building 318.

This is a 41,000 SF building, built in 1940. This building provides a

unique location for a variety of community support events throughout

the year that often involve large numbers of people, such as town hall

meetings, Chapel family events, Army Family Action Plan conferences,

etc. The existing heating and air-conditioning equipment is failing,

and portions of it cannot be repaired due to its age. As a result it is

unable to cool and heat the building sufficiently throughout the year.

Earmark: Repair Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning System in

National Simulations Center
Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins
[[Page E2105]]
Bill Number: H.R. 3326
Account: OM,A
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Leavenworth, KS
Address of Requesting Entity: 881 McClellan Ave, Fort Leavenworth, KS
66027
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,785,000 to correct
air quality problems in the three-story, 93,000 SF National Simulation
Center located in Building 45. Originally built in 1882, this former
barracks was remodeled 15 years ago into a secure training facility,
which due to its mission, could not have any windows. It houses a large
amount of information technology which is used in conducting
simulations. The number of personnel using the building during training
simulations has increased substantially over the last several years.
The HVAC system must be upgraded to handle the requirement to properly
ventilate and cool the building given the larger heat load generated by
the automation equipment and the high number of personnel. The existing
HVAC equipment was installed during the last remodel and has reached
its useful life expectancy. It is no longer capable of supporting the
mission.

Earmark: 190th Air Refueling Wing Squadron Operations Facility
Requesting Member: Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins
Bill Number: H.R. 3326
Account: OM,ANG
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kansas Air National Guard
Address of Requesting Entity: 5920 SE Coyote Dr., Topeka, KS 66619
Description of Request: To provide an earmark of $1,000,000 to
remodel and upgrade the current Squadron Operations Facility to
effectively meet the day-to-day requirements of the 190th ARW, which
has increased in size and mission for the KC-135R tanker operation.

Finally Lynn Jenkins votes for the bill and the earmarks, on roll call 675 she votes for passage.  On roll call 985 she voted to agree with a Senate Amendment to the bill.

On roll call 983 she did, however, vote to keep the bill from coming to the floor.  Lynn Jenkins loves saying no.