From the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services: A hearing on "Foreign Cyber Threats to the United States"

Here's a link for more information related to the hearing below.

Aside for general information related to the specific question about possible Russian hacking during the 2016 election, it also offers 2305 students a look at one of the central functions of a congressional committee - the holding of hearing related to issues within the jurisdiction of the committee.

- Click here for the page dedicated to the hearing.

The witnesses provide an indication of what types of executive officials engage in activities within the jurisdiction of the committee. These positions are:

1 - The Director of National Intelligence.
2 - The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
3 - United States Cyber Command.
4 - National Security Agency.
5 - Central Security Service.

Here is information about the witnesses:

1 - James R. Clapper.
2 - Marcel J. Lettre.
3 - Michael S. Rogers.

These of course are people affiliated with the Obama Administration, In a later post I'll highlight the people Donald Trump has appointed to replace them.

Lawfare published an assessment of the hearing. The author points out how cordial and respectful members of the committee were towards the witnesses, and the intelligence community in general. This is in sharp contrast to comments by Trump.

- Click here for What Yesterday’s Senate Armed Services Committee Portends.

While John McCain, the committee chairman, was unspairing in his criticism of the Obama administration for not developing a cyber deterrence strategy, his demeanor towards the DNI was one of profound respect and cordiality. Others too made a point of thanking Clapper for his long service in various intelligence capacities and across administrations.

The message here was not merely one of fondness for the man himself, though that was evident at times; it was a way of conveying admiration and respect for the intellingence community that he and NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers were there representing. Sometimes, this linkage was explicit. At one point, Clapper was asked to describe his career and its apolitical nature and was asked pointedly whether it was representative of others in the community. He was asked, more than once, for his opinion of Julian Assange and about how Assange is regarded within the community. (Needless to say, Clapper’s not a fan.) Nor was the love fest purely emanating from the Democratic side. The hearing, pretty much wall to wall, showcased the committee’s confidence in the intelligence community as a set of institutions with integrity. At a time when that integrity is under fire from the President-elect, it was a powerful statement.

Indeed, no defense of Trump’s position emerged in any significant way from any member of the committee. To be sure, Sen. Tom Cotton raised the question of whether Trump will be worse for Russia than Hillary Clinton would have been, given his commitment to increased defense spending. And he asked questions that aimed to clarify the relatively narrow scope of the IC’s findings with respect to Russia. Sen. Thom Tillis, doing his best imitation of Noam Chomsky, declared that “there is research done by a professor up at Carnegie Mellon that is estimating that the United States has been involved one way or another in 81 different elections Since World War II. That is not including the coups or regime changes. And Russa has done it 36 times.” But Tillis's Chomskyism was fainthearted and short-lived, and no Republican on the committee stood up for the proposition that the hack may not have been a Russian effort to influence the election. Mostly, Republican senators who weren’t leading the charge contented themselves instead with asking the witnessess about other foreign cybersecurity concerns.
And some GOP senators were really on fire. Sen. McCain set the tone when he opened the hearing by declaring that “there’s no escaping the fact that this committee meets today for the first time in this new Congress in the aftermath of an unprecedented attack on our democracy.”

From Roll Call: Republicans Restructure Panel for Selecting Committee Assignments

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about committees, so the staffing process can change as parties see fit.

- Click here for the article.

House Republicans on Wednesday restructured the panel of representatives that select committee chairmen and members, removing at-large seats in favor of more regional slots.

The move was the final piece of plan to restructure the Republican Steering Committee that the conference agreed to last November. The overhaul was part of Speaker Paul D. Ryan's promise to change GOP rules and procedures to give rank-and-file members more input.

The steering committee in December will, among other things, decide the next chairmen of two of the most influential legislative panels on Capitol Hill, House Appropriations and Energy and Commerce.

When Republicans began the restructuring last year, they removed all but one Steering Committee seat set aside for committee chairmen and replaced those seats with six at-large seats. The plan was always to switch the at-large seats for six new regional slots this year in preparation for the 115th Congress.

From the Texas Tribune: Ted Cruz Takes Dead Aim at Obama Administration in Internet Dispute

More checks and balances - staring our junior senator. Free speech concerns play a role here, as well as questions over the legitimate functions of government. In this case it appears the senator is in favor of U.S. governmental control over a key aspect of the internet - one mentioned below.

He has introduced a bill blocking an Obama proposal to let go of ICANN.

- Click here for the story.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might be laying low politically, but this fall he's taking the lead on an obscure issue that could affect ongoing federal budget negotiations: Who should control how the Internet is organized?

Cruz is fighting an impending move by the federal government to relinquish oversight of a nonprofit organization that determines the way domain names are organized on the Internet.

It’s an issue on the minds of many conservatives, who charge that giving up that power would allow authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to further censor free speech on the Web.

"Once the government's out of the picture, First Amendment protections go away," Cruz said Wednesday morning at a Senate hearing he chaired.

"Why risk it? The Internet works. It's not broken," he later added. "What is the problem that is trying to be solved here?"

But those advocating for the move toward privatization, a group that includes the Obama administration and a number of technology companies, say that the U.S. ceded de facto control of the Internet decades ago and that such concern is overstated.

From the Washington Examiner: Hearing a showdown between First Amendment and Congress

The story raises federalism issues as well, and highlights recent activities involving the House Science Committee chaired by Texas Republican Lamar Smith.

- Click here for the article.

Wednesday hearing in the House is shaping up to be a battle between First Amendment rights and Congress' subpoena authority in its own investigations.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing assessing subpoenas issued by Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to two state attorneys general and a number of scientific groups. Smith issued the subpoenas earlier this summer to get documents related to the climate change investigations of Exxon Mobil by New York and Massachusetts attorneys general.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and a number of scientific groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, have refused to comply with Smith's subpoenas. The attorneys general cite federalism concerns, while the groups say their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

On Wednesday, four law professors will go in front of the committee and assess whether Smith's subpoenas are valid. A committee aide said the goal is to show the subpoenas are valid and to force the groups into complying with them given that some of them have not shown they're willing to work with the committee.

"We're really seeing an obstruction of a congressional investigation," the aide said.

Eight organizations, in addition to the two attorneys general, received subpoenas from Smith in July. None has complied, though negotiations are ongoing.

Smith will hope to show that the subpoenas are valid under the three-pronged test set out by the Supreme Court for congressional investigations. According to that test, the subpoenas need to be issued by a committee with legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter, have a valid legislative purpose and be asking questions pertinent to the investigation.

Smith argued in a letter to the attorneys general this summer that his committee is investigating if Schneiderman and Healey are taking actions that would have a chilling effect on research and development funding. Research and development funding is, with the exception of military and medical funding, under the committee's purview.

- Click here for the hearing.

The title is: Full Committee Hearing - Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas.

For news coverage:

- House Science Committee Hearing an Attempt to Justify Unconstitutional Investigation.
- Constitutional scholars to House climate deniers: No witch hunt of Exxon critics.
- Congress should ask what Exxon knew about climate change.

Catching up with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

ACC rep Pete Olson is on it. Here's what it's up to.

- Click here for its website.

Here are links to Olson's subcommittees

- Energy and Power.
- Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.
- Communications and Technology.

And for random news:

- Bill Blocking Lawsuits for Negative Web Reviews Passes House.
- Rep. Fred Upton wants NHTSA to look at vehicle hacking.
- Moniz to talk fracking, energy security with House panel.
- Seat on Energy & Commerce panel helped determine donations to Whitfield.

For 2305 today

Checks and balances:

- Cruz kicks off Internet oversight countdown with subcommittee hearing.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz today announced that he’ll hold a Senate subcommittee hearing to explore the “dangers” of an Obama administration plan to turn over technical internet oversight to a nonprofit just weeks before the plan is to take effect.

There are just 23 days left until the U.S. Commerce Department cedes oversight of the technical functions that make the internet work to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). But the plan is not guaranteed to go through, given that Republicans, led by Cruz, continue to fight it.

Cruz’s latest move is scheduling a Sept. 14 hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, which he chairs, to investigate the “possible dangers” of the transition plan, he announced Sept. 7.

- Click here for the subcommittee's website.


And more checks and balances:

- 5 Texas judge nominees have broad support but won't be confirmed anytime soon.

Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz lavished praise on them. President Barack Obama said they had displayed an “unwavering commitment” to justice and integrity. They are desperately needed in Texas, where 10 long-standing vacancies on the federal bench have created a lengthy backlog of cases.

But when will the five recent nominees to serve as Texas district judges get a confirmation vote in the Senate?

“We’re going to have to work that out,” Cornyn said Wednesday. “If we can’t get it done before the election, then perhaps after the election that’s something we could work on.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for the five nominees, ostensibly providing hope that the long-open vacancies could soon be addressed.

Texas has more judicial openings than any other state. All 10 have been designated “emergencies” by the federal government, based on the backlog of cases each district faces, and seven have been empty more than a year.

- Click here to see the hearing - if you wish.
- Click here for American Association for Justice - which was mentioned in the article.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.


A story about federalism:

- Closure of private prisons could hit Texas in pocketbook.

Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lucrative government contracts could be in jeopardy in Texas with the Department of Justice's decision to phase out the use of privately run prisons.

Of the 14 private prisons facing the loss of federal contracts, five are in Texas - the most of any state. The impact will be felt not only in prison yards but also in the tax rolls and cash registers of small towns and local communities.

"We are very concerned about what is going to happen," said Howard County Judge Kathryn Wiseman in Big Spring, where the GEO Group employs 480 people at its detention facility.

Wiseman said she fears that nearly all the jobs at the prison will be lost when the company's federal contract expires in March.

"These are our friends and neighbors; these are people who coach Little League baseball and belong to our civic organization," she said. "They will leave a hole not just in our economy because they pay taxes, but in our community."

The Department of Justice recently directed the Bureau of Prisons to phase out its business with private corporations as contracts expire over the next five years. The Department of Homeland Security followed the move by announcing it would also evaluate its partnerships with private companies in running more than two dozen immigrant detention centers.

- Click here for the website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- Review of the Federal Bureau ofPrisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons.


And one more about federalism.

- In Debate Over ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ a Divide on the Role of the Local Police.

Mr. Trump is coming down on one side of a vigorous partisan debate over the degree to which local law enforcement should be involved in enforcing immigration laws. There is a deep split among law enforcement officials, not to mention elected officials. Just last year, after a young woman was shot by an immigrant here illegally with a criminal record who had been released by the authorities in San Francisco, the Republican-led House voted to withhold some federal funding from jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal officials. In the Senate, Democrats this summer blocked a similar bill, which the White House had vowed to veto.

In limiting cooperation with the federal immigration authorities, some local law enforcement officials contend that they are making their jurisdictions safer by encouraging undocumented immigrants to take the risk of coming forward to report crimes. But those who see immigration violations as serious offenses contend that such policies lead to criminality.

The issue has bedeviled the Obama administration for years. In his first term, President Obama expanded nationwide a program allowing the Department of Homeland Security to receive the fingerprints of every person booked by the state and local police. After many immigrant communities rebelled, the administration canceled some of its efforts in 2014, and replaced them with a single, less intrusive one, hoping to court big cities to cooperate rather than to coerce them.

From the NYT: G.O.P. Senators Say Obama Supreme Court Pick Will Be Rejected

- Click here for the article.

Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday that there would be no confirmation hearings, no vote, not even a courtesy meeting with President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, all but slamming shut any prospects for an election-year Supreme Court confirmation.

Together with a written vow from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee that they would not hold any confirmation hearings, the pledge was the clearest statement yet from the Senate’s majority party that it would do everything it can to prevent Mr. Obama from shifting the ideological balance of the nation’s high court. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, urged Mr. Obama to reconsider even submitting a name.

“This nomination will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the polls,” Mr. McConnell said. “I agree with the Judiciary Committee’s recommendation that we not have hearings. In short, there will not be action taken.”

Local House Reps Olson and Weber are on the following committees and subcommittees

Presumably both members choose these committees because they touch in issues that are important to the local constituency. We'll review these in class.

Randy Weber

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
- Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
- Member, Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy

House Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Member, Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa
- Member, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.
Pete Olson

House Committee on Energy and Commerce
- Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
- Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
- Member, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

From the Baltimore Sun: The death of the congressional committee

This is a few years old, but it illustrates how things change in Congress.

- Click here for it.

Woodrow Wilson once observed: "Congress in committee is Congress at work." But what was once a keen observation is now little more than an anachronism describing a Congress that no longer exists. In theory, the committee structure is crucial to a functioning Congress. By dividing the work among specialized "mini-congresses," the committee system allows Congress to become greater than the sum of its parts. Committees allow Congress to overcome the challenges of managing a diverse and numerous body through specialization and structure. Perhaps of greater import, committees offer the promise of deliberation, moderation and compromise as a multitude of voices contribute to the crafting of legislation … in theory.

In reality, the committee system in Congress has become increasingly irrelevant, especially with regard to what might be considered major or controversial legislation. Instead, most major policy decisions are made, not through a process of deliberation, but through the concerted efforts of party leadership and often with the total exclusion of not only minority party members but most of the rank and file membership of the majority party as well.

For more:

- Wikipedia: United States congressional committee.

Introducing The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015

Before too long we will be looking at Congress and the bill making process. When we do, we'll notice that the Constitution says very little about how bills become laws, so the process has changed over time. We will also point out that the cumbersome nature of the process makes it very difficult for bills to actually become laws. Most get bogged down in committee.

That may or may not be the fate of this law, but it's a good look at how one man proposes to change existing law to cut back on birthright citizenship. This was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2015 by Steve King who represents the 4th District of Iowa. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which then sent it to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

- Click here for H.R 140 - The Birthright Citizenship Act.

Here's a description of the bill:

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

States that this Act shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of its enactment.

Since you are probably not familiar with the Immigration and Nationality Act, click here to catch up on it. The purpose of the bill seems to be to change birthright citizenship from being based on Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis.

If anything happens to it, you'll hear about it here.

Today in the Checks and Balances: the Senate Judiciary Committee questions Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution about this part of the process, but members of this committee have special jurisdiction over the Treasury Department. If approved by the committee, the nomination goes to the floor of the Senate. This part is mandated by the Constitution. Here's the relevant part:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

- Click here for historical detail from Findlaw.

The Hill reports that the nominee will likely sail through the process. The committee may simply be exhausted from fighting with the current Attorney General for so long. A breather may be in order.

Here's some - hopefully useful - background reading. This touches on issues we will cover soon enough in class.

- US Attorney General: This was one of the first executive positions established by Congress - the AG was the chief lawyer of the U.S. government and served bit the president and Congress. The first was Edmund Randolph. He served - along with the three others as members of Washington's first cabinet. The office was established in the same bill that established the process for the writ of mandamus that would be lead to the development of the power of judicial review.

- Senate Judiciary Committee: The committee was established in 1816. Click here for a history of the committee from its webpage and here for a look at the history of the committee system in the Senate. Until 1816, committees were informal and ad-hoc and members often met at theirs desks. The growth of the nation and the increased complexity of the law making process led the Senate to establish standing committees in 1816. The judiciary committee was one of the first. Aside from having oversight authority over the Justice Department it also considers nominations to the federal judiciary.

- Department of Justice: This was established in 1870 after the House Committee on the Judiciary recommended that the office of Attorney General be made full time and that the attorneys involved in various aspects of governance be put under one roof. These attorneys represented the national government in all legal matters and oversaw the prosecution of federal crimes.

The emerging field of political intelligence - the fastest growing field you've never heard of

The Dish had a recent post telling how to profit from boring subcommittee meetings.

Hire yourself out to large businesses who want quick information about what is happening in these meetings.

From Mother Jones:

As Wall Street has pursued ever more complex ways to make a buck, the political-intelligence industry has boomed, bringing in $402 million in 2009, according to Integrity Research Associates, which tracks the PI sector. That's still small potatoes compared to the $3.3 billion lobbying industry, but it has caught the eye of critics who worry that it amounts to selling special access to the public's business. "This is basically the kind of thing that America hates," says former lobbyist-turned-reformer Jack Abramoff.

Heather Podesta, a corporate lobbyist who once proudly sewed a scarlet "L" on her dress at a Democratic convention party, recalls the moment several years ago when she realized political intel had taken on a life of its own. Hedge funders had packed the audience at a Senate hearing on asbestos legislation. They had no interest in the policy implications; they just wanted to find out first so they could place their bets for or against the asbestos makers. "The whole thing," Podesta tells me at the power-lunch staple Charlie Palmer, "was just so sleazy." Yet so long as they don't veer into insider trading or Abramoff-style shenanigans, the political-intelligence firms aren't breaking any laws. "All they're doing is discovering the information and conveying it," concedes Abramoff, whose influence-peddling schemes swept up a half-dozen Republican lawmakers and landed him in prison. "I'm not even sure if you made it illegal there's any way to enforce it. It's ingenious."

The political-intelligence industry began to take shape in the early 1980s. As federal regulatory power expanded, big business wanted to know what happened in obscure subcommittee hearings—and didn't want to wait for the next day's papers to read about it. In 1984, investment banker Ivan Boesky hired lobbyists to attend committee hearings about a big oil merger and report back to him. It paid off: Boesky made a cool $65 million just by finding out first and buying low. "Investors started to realize that there was money to be made by knowing what was going on in Washington and knowing it as quickly as possible," says Michael Mayhew, the founder of Integrity Research Associates.

Click here for a link to Integrity Research Associates.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves use of military force

From the NYT:

A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian government, setting up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Obama should have the authority to strike.

The 10-to-7 vote showed bipartisan support for a strike, but bipartisan opposition as well.

. . . The approved resolution would limit strikes against the Syrian government to 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days upon consultation with Congress, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops. But to retain the support of Mr. McCain, considered crucial to the authorization’s final passage, the committee toughened some of the language.

Jack Goldsmith compares the version of the AUMF passed by the committee with that proposed by the Obama Administration (courtesy of The Dish).

- Here is the administration's proposal.
- Here is what passed the committee

Oversight: the Justice Department and the House Judiciary Committee

C-Span covers Holder's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the investigation of the Associated Press. This is an oversight hearing, so it fits within the context of checks and balances which are designed to keep the branches separated.

Here's a link to the House Judiciary Committee by the way. Two members of the local congressional delegations are on the committee: Republican Ted Poe and Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Poe is the Vice-Chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security - which makes sense considering the importance of this issue to the local community. Here's a description of the subcommittee:

The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, Federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, nonborder immigration enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

Ms. Jackson-Lee is also a member of that subcommittee as well as the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. Mr Poe is a member of that subcommittee as well. And here is a description of it:

The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: Administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, copyright, patent, trademark law, information technology, other appropriate matters as referred to by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

For descriptions of standing committees - which we will be covering soon - click here. And for committees in general, click here. And - finally - click here for a description of subcommittees. All of this will be covered in upcoming lectures.






 

Area congressional committee membership

For informational purposes, here are the standing committees area US House members, and Texas' two Senators serve on. Some committees have several area members. This tells us which are considered to be especially important to the local community.

Texas Senators:
- Armed Services
- Commerce, Science and Transportation
- Finance
- Judiciary - 2

Texas Representatives:
- Appropriations
- Energy and Commerce - 2
- Financial Services
- Foreign Affairs - 4
- Homeland Security
- Judiciary - 2
- Science, Space and Technology - 4
- Ways and Means

Area representative Michael McCall chairs the Homeland Security Committee and two committees on this list are chaired by Texans: The Science, Space and Technology Committee is chaired by Lamar Smith, who represents the San Antonio, Bandera area and Jeb Hensarling - who represents the area southeast of Dallas - chairs the Financial Services Committee.

More to come.

A few stories for 2305's look at Congress

A few stories have floated around about caucuses:

- Here's a look at the Congressional Black Caucus' agenda for this session.

- And the Congressional Chicken Caucus has been re-organized.

- And AmmoLand highlights the new leadership for the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus.

- And Alabama.com announces leadership for the Congressional Peanut Caucus.

- The Association of Corporate Counsel points out that the financial committees will be busy this year.

- The ACC also outlines the rules package passed by the House recently.

That's enough for now, expect more as the week goes on.

Texas Senate Committee holds hearings on solitary confinment

This Texas Tribune story builds off a post below - maybe its a trend? In the section on public policy we discuss agenda setting, and how certain events can cause items to come on the public agenda. Perhaps this has happened to whether solitary confinement is appropriate punishment, or is cruel and unusual.

The story highlights hearings held by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and its chairman John Whitmire, who represents a district in Houston, note the spin he's putting on the issue - how he's defining it:


While solitary confinement in prisons is rising as a national issue because of concerns about its psychological effect on individual inmates, Texas lawmakers are worried in particular that inmates are released with no transition between solitary confinement and the free world.

"The longer you leave someone in there without rehabilitation, there is a possibility they will come out more dangerous,” Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, said Tuesday at a committee hearing.

Though the U.S. still leads the world in its rate of solitary confinement, Texas has seen a slight decline in its number of inmates held in administrative segregation. There are 8,144 inmates (including roughly 80 women) under the classification in Texas, down from 8,701 in 2010 and 9,752 in 2005. The average stay in administrative segregation is 3.2 years, but some inmates have been there for more than two decades.

So we are less worried about the effect solitary confinement has on the prisoner, but the effect it can have on society once these people finish their terms.

Texas House Committee Membership

The Texas Tribune has an interactive feature that highlights the districts of the members of different House Committees. Its a good look at how power and influence is distributed geographically in the state.

Executive Privilege exerted by Obama over Fast and Furious program

Just in time for our discussion about executive power.

Story in the Washington Post, and the NYT.

The House Oversight Committee is set to vote on contempt citation.

Members of the House Public Education Committee hold hearings on STARR tests

And it doesn't seem to have been a pleasant meeting:


There is a growing frustration among parents and educators — and apparently legislators — with the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, known as STAAR. Many say the sheer volume of high-stakes tests and how those tests affect students have become hugely problematic.

"The only people that are being hurt this school year are children," said Wanda Bamberg, the superintendent of the Aldine Independent School District.

Superintendents from across the state testified that the number of high school dropouts could skyrocket in the coming years because almost three-quarters of the students who failed the exams this spring were already considered at risk of dropping out.

File this under oversight, among other things.