Civil Rights

In 1946, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was created to monitor and prevent the abuse of human rights. It failed miserably. The Commission lost its credibility as an instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Commission instead allowed repressive regimes, like Cuba, Sudan, Libya, Belarus, China, and Zimbabwe, to shield themselves from criticism for their own human rights violations.

On March 15, 2006, the Commission was replaced with a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). But while making superficial structural changes, there has been no reform. Indeed, the new elected membership includes nine countries that the democracy watchdog Freedom House designates as not free include China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Algeria, Cameroon, and Azerbaijan.


The U.S. should not support the UNHRC until it upholds the ideals of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and its membership is made up of free and democratic nations.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is an expensive and unnecessary federal program that requires owners of livestock-- cattle, dairy, poultry, and even horses-- to tag animals with electronic tracking devices. The intrusive monitoring system amounts to nothing more than a tax on livestock owners, allowing the federal government access to detailed information about their private property.Under NAIS, small family farmers and ranchers will be forced to spend thousands of dollars tagging animals and complying with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant-- a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases. States already have animal identification systems in place, and virtually all stockyards issue health certificates. Since most contamination happens after animals have been sold, tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won't help find the sources of disease.

More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas competition.

 

 

For years, the Bush administration has not kept the Senate Intelligence committee fully and currently informed of all appropriate intelligence activities. Until recently, for example, for some time now only two Democratic senators were allowed by the Bush administration to be briefed on all these matters that are all over our newspapers.

These failures in my view have put the American people in a difficult spot. Because the committee hasn't been kept informed, because of these revelations in the newspapers, now we have many of our citizens -- law-abiding, patriotic Americans who want to strike the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting liberty, now they're questioning their government's word. (from the open hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence-May 18)

 

 

It's not useful, it's not fair to the American people, and it's not legal.

Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.

While some may question the need to address this issue at this particular time, the simple answer is that the institution of marriage continues to be under assault by a coordinated campaign of legal activists. Since 2004 alone, state courts in Washington, New York, California, Maryland, and Oregon have found traditional marriage laws unconstitutional, and a federal judge in Nebraska has struck down a state constitutional amendment.

Numerous other lawsuits have been filed and will continue to be filed across the nation – even as voters take to the polls in support of laws protecting marriage. The question presented to this committee today was simple: Do you believe traditional marriage is important enough that it deserves full legal protection? In my view, the answer to that question is also simple. Yes.

Marriage must be protected by the Constitution, and the American people should be able to choose, not have invalidation of traditional marriage laws forced on them by courts. The amendment we passed will provide that protection. It will define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protect against judicial activism.

On the one-year anniversary of Ethiopia's general elections, the United States simply must pressure the Ethiopian government to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. We must negotiate with the two main political party coalitions, so that the current stalemate (which limits the rights of opposition party members in Parliament) is ended. It is also essential that the killing of protestors by government forces in the election's aftermath is formally investigated.

Read more...

The Administration today announced that the United States is establishing full diplomatic relations with Tripoli and removing Libya from our official list of state sponsors of terrorism. As the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee and a leading voice in Congress for normalizing relations with Libya since it began taking steps in December 2003 to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, I am delighted that we have finally taken these steps.

Read more...

The revelation that several telecommunications carriers are complicit in the NSA's once-secret program, raises the question as to whether these carriers are in violation of Section 222 of the Communications Act and the Commission's regulations implementing that section.  As you know, one of the principal purposes of Section 222 is to safeguard the privacy of telecommunications consumers.  I am aware of no exception in that statute or in the Commission's regulations for 'intelligence gathering purposes,' or any other similar purpose, that would permit the wholesale disclosure of consumer records to any entity.

For a copy of the letter sent to Chairman Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission, check out  http://markey.house.gov/

With news reports of even broader NSA surveillance activities involving Americans on American soil with no court approval, Congress must step up its oversight of the NSA. Until now, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility -- perhaps this latest disclosure will finally prompt Congress to wake up to its duty after a four-year long slumber.