Slashdot Mirror

If they lost them, which they couldn't have (and after Senator Leahy called them out on this they somewhat admitted that they were lost not destroyed), then they've broken the Presidential Records Act. Actually, we probably have evidence of this already since White House staffers like Karl Rove have been circumventing official record keeping by using Republican National Committee email accounts for official business. Amazing how a little oversight uncovers so much dirt...

So, apparently my original post dealt with something called the "Protect America Act", which is different than the ongoing immunity for the telecoms due to illegal wiretapping. But it turns out that the "Protect America Act" is related (in the sense that it deals with the power of government to spy on people without court authority) and relevant (because they are currently talking about it in Congress to get it extended).

Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007
Dateline: August 7, 2007

This Act of Congress made it legal to wiretap lines OUTSIDE of the US.

Original vote of Aug 4, 2007

A recent vote extended the Protect America Act (originally intended to expire on Feb 1, 2008) to be good until the end of this current week.

Just an FYI, the common advice for getting a Congress member to pay any modicum of attention to criticism is to send it via some tangible form: physical mail or fax transmission. Emails and online petitions and so forth appear to be generally ignored or held in much lighter regard. You can get the appropriate contact information for your senators via looking them up here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (the equivalent for the House would be https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml). As for voting histories, those are likely available with more digging on either senate.gov or house.gov. I think this is the relevant roll-call record for this issue: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00019

No... that's Ron Paul in a "completely unsubstantiated ad hominem"

It's not an ad hominem if it's true.

If you know of a specific Ron Paul policy that is "nuts" then please present it

Gold standard (yes, gold standard), pollution, climate change, just about any of Paul's economic policies...

since you've already falsely claimed that he wants to go back to the gold standard

Don't call me a liar, liar.

and then provide evidence that the policy is such a proven failure

1) we were on the gold standard in the twenties 2) it didn't do a thing to prevent economic collapse in this country.

I'll see your Wiki page and raise you a speech before Congress where he says "gold standard" 11 times and "gold" 45 times.

here's the bit from RP's wikipedia page that outlines his position on this matter:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

snip

Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

snip

Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.

Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.

FTB:

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--
(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and
(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

See how your representative voted.

Even so... IMHO this still opens the door to more Orwellian legislation, and provides further evidence of how industry pwnes our government.

(a) DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RE-
LATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.--Section
485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended--
        (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subpara-
    graph (N);
        (2) by striking the period at the end of sub-
    paragraph (O) and inserting ``: and'' ; and
        (3) by adding at the end the following new sub-
    paragraph:
              ``(P) institutional policies and sanctions re-
        lated to copyright infringement, including--
                  ``(i) an annual disclosure that explic-
              itly informs students that unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted material, in-
cluding unauthorized peer-to-peer file shar-
ing, may subject the students to civil and
criminal liabilities;
      ``(ii) a summary of the penalties for
violation of Federal copyright laws;
      ``(iii) a description of the institution's
policies with respect to unauthorized peer-
to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary
actions that are taken against students
who engage in unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted materials using the institu-
tion's information technology system; and
      ``(iv) a description of actions that the
institution takes to prevent and detect un-
authorized distribution of copyrighted ma-
terial on the institution's information tech-
nology system.''.

But wait! Puerto Rico has a non-voting delegate in the US House of Representatives, too! Oh, and as a resident of DC, the license plates are one of the many options you can get (you're not required to get that particular design). I suppose you would also say that everyone in Missouri now must have a "Choose Life" license plate.

House
Senate

This is "Flamebait"? Next time, try a little research before you reach for that button, mods. Here, let me start you off:

http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?Issue=Politics+and+Science
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/02/72672
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html

Ask and ye shall receive....

There is an ENORMOUS WEALTH OF RON PAUL's WRITINGS, speeches, and opinions online. He's been writing a weekly article for god knows how long, called Texas Straight Talk.

See them all, plus all his speeches and press releases from many years back here:

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

I could not agree more. However, when we let elected officals pander to these conglomerates it only gets worse... If you don't like it, write a letter to your state's Senators, Representatives, and most importantly... VOTE.

Time to end the fun with this one, I suppose.

Oh, so Ron Paul doesn't support a return to the Gold Standard?

Or immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

Lordy, where could I have gotten those ideas?

Here's the secondary point - it's not that I don't know what Paul stands for. It's not that I'm an uneducated loon on the matter of international relations - frankly, a political science BA with an international relations focus is good for little else, and law school just might give me an edge on understanding, you know, the law. I know what he stands for. I've read his issue statements.

I just completely disagree with far too much of it to ever consider voting for him.

I know, I know. It's tough for you to comprehend. Your messiah came down and told you - promised you - that all you had to do was get the word out. Put up ugly signs. Vote in useless internet polls. Then, the people would flock to their Austrian economics, non-interventionist god. Of course, the millions given to him didn't hurt one bit, either.

But you failed. You didn't lose to a media conspiracy. You didn't lose to a grand assassination plot. You lost because his ideas resonate with, at best, a tiny minority of angry but ultimately impotent people who cannot possibly hope to accomplish what they want.

But here's the main point - you did nothing to convince me. Nothing. Look back at the previous posts - all of 'em. Where is the eloquent argument for Paul's policies? Where? It seems to me that we began debating a point of law. You lost, so we slid to something else, and the question became one of "why don't you support Ron Paul?", as if there was clearly some mental defect in me if I could not see the glory of the great messiah of the gold standard reigning down.

Well, with a top 6% score on the LSAT, the ability to speak 3 languages, fairly extensive overseas travel, a college degree and a graduate degree on the way, I may not be the smartest guy on the block - if law school teaches you anything, it's that you're not nearly as smart as you think you are - but I'm not the dumbest either. It's not that all those who dislike Ron Paul are stupid - it's that we just don't like him or can easily name a list of preferable candidates. And much of our dislike happens to come from the fact that we do, in fact, understand his policies.

To sum up, your entire argument has been, "why don't you love me?" This is not convincing. I let it go on for a while - curious to see if you would ever put up something other than a half-hearted defense, curious to know if you would ever at least attempt to grab the initiative. Unsurprisingly, you did neither. You're like the sad little ex-boyfriend who hangs around a former girlfriend, convinced the relationship is still on unless she can give him a reason for it to end. No courting, no schmoozing - just an obsessive, crazed hanger-on who, in the end, will probably brush himself off, curse the one who spurned him for being such a fool, and then wander off to find the next hopeless cause to pin his life to.

Sometimes, it's just over, usually because the groundwork itself was never laid. And now, it's over - quite literally for Paul.

Paul, rather unsurprisingly, lost miserably once again tonight in Maine, coming in behind McCain who, once again, barely bothered to campaign in that state. No, Ron Paul did not win in New Hampshire. No, he did not even come close to first in Nevada. He then failed massively in Maine. He possesses a whopping four ballots - less than 1/4 of one percent than that needed to take the nomination.

It's over. It never even began for Ron Paul.

I'm not sure who I'll vote for in November. Elections are - and always have been - about deciding between the lesser of a set of evils who must at least fall within a certain set of parameters to be palatable at all. I find little t

This is related to the PRO-IP Act (press released on Dev 5, 2007) that is in Congress. Here is who to blame:

Here's the "SHOCK AND AWE" value that the industry is using to get people's attention:

Obviously, any rational thinking individual knows that 750,000 individuals are not "out on the streets" because piracy has taken away the revenue streams necessary for employing them.

Similarly, *if* $200-250 Billion isn't flowing into the pockets of Imaginary Property companies each year, doesn't that just mean that Americans are free to spend that same money elsewhere? Shouldn't Americans NOT NEED A $150 Billion handout from the government, if they have all this extra money from their copyright infringement?

Something isn't right...

Boucher has a bill in the house to revise the DMCA. Don't forget to contact your congressperson to encourage them to support this necessary reform.

"Uncertainty" according to whose standard?

It's pretty easy when you look at the vote tallies for your county and see that the candidate you voted for is showing zero votes. That makes it obvious that the original count is wrong. It's difficult to spot shifting vote numbers once the numbers get higher, which is why we need UN election oversight. This is a measure we insist on in other countries but yet refuse in our own. Uncertainty is when you vote is being counted by black box machines made by a company that employs know felons in key management areas. Strangely the people put in power by this voting system, don't want the system to change, funny that. True election reform which would break us out of our dysfunctional two party system, such as approval voting or instant runoff voting will never pass through a legislature put in power by a strong two party system. Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices.

According to federal law, the militia includes all able bodied men. It is not just the National Guard. In particular note the unorganized militia class.

10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+170+37++(militia)%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Note well that this legislation is still a bill and has not yet been passed into law, so you may still write to your Representative to urge him or her to remove the offending portion. http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Just imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those!

Apologies, it is not automatic. But a resolution is passed every year, and is often done so before the budget is even produced by the President. For 2007, see H.J. Res. 20 (link to 110th congress H.J. Res. 20). The resolution generally funds single-year programs at equivalent levels of the 2006 budget. The House Rules Glossary lists these continuations under "Continuing Resolution", defined thus:

Continuing Resolution (CR) - A joint resolution that provides funds to continue the operation of federal agencies and programs at the beginning of a new fiscal year if their annual appropriation bills have not yet been enacted; also called continuing appropriations. Enacted shortly before or after the new fiscal year begins, the first continuing resolution usually makes funds available for a specified period; additional resolutions are often needed after the first expires. Some CRs have provided appropriations for an entire fiscal year. Continuing resolutions for specific periods customarily fix a rate at which agencies may incur obligations based either on the prior year's appropriations, the President's budget request, or the amount in the agency's regular annual appropriation bill that has already been passed by one or both houses. In the House, continuing resolutions are privileged after September 15.

Naturally for the government agencies involved this is kind of a headache, and requires money-shuffling so that the projects that need funding get funding.

Reid

Apologies, it is not automatic. But a resolution is passed every year, and is often done so before the budget is even produced by the President. For 2007, see H.J. Res. 20 (link to 110th congress H.J. Res. 20). The resolution generally funds single-year programs at equivalent levels of the 2006 budget. The House Rules Glossary lists these continuations under "Continuing Resolution", defined thus:

Continuing Resolution (CR) - A joint resolution that provides funds to continue the operation of federal agencies and programs at the beginning of a new fiscal year if their annual appropriation bills have not yet been enacted; also called continuing appropriations. Enacted shortly before or after the new fiscal year begins, the first continuing resolution usually makes funds available for a specified period; additional resolutions are often needed after the first expires. Some CRs have provided appropriations for an entire fiscal year. Continuing resolutions for specific periods customarily fix a rate at which agencies may incur obligations based either on the prior year's appropriations, the President's budget request, or the amount in the agency's regular annual appropriation bill that has already been passed by one or both houses. In the House, continuing resolutions are privileged after September 15.

Naturally for the government agencies involved this is kind of a headache, and requires money-shuffling so that the projects that need funding get funding.

Reid

since i wager i'm hardly the only slashdotter who doesn't know, here's how to find out who your representative is, what district you're in and his/her DC office.

(note, you will need to know your ZIP code, and possibly +4).

ed

Where does rewriting history and continuing Bush' attempts to solidify a theocracy in the US come on the list?

I don't really see that I'm making your point. Laws also don't always reflect morality or right and wrong.

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

rj

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Ron Paul is vehemently against the Real ID act.
From his official congressional website (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst050905.htm):

"The US House of Representatives passed a spending bill last week that contains provisions establishing a national ID card, and the Senate is poised to approve the measure in the next few days. This week marks the American public's last chance to convince their Senators they don't want to live in a nation that demands papers from its citizens as they go about their lives...
One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don't obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals."

Committee on Energy and Commerce has a subcomittee for this:
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
14 reublicans
18 democrats
1 vacancy
and the chairman is a democrat
You can see all their names and voting records http://energycommerce.house.gov/Subcommittees/telint.shtml Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

With that many representatives, they might have to resort to using modern technology for register votes.

Everything you say is true, but is not relevant to his definition of fairness... Not to say you aren't right, but he's a mathematician and not a politician...

Quite so, and to get a publication out of the issue he has to offer a new and more complicated method than any of the historical ones. An excellent study of this issue was prepared by the Congression Research Service six years ago.

The upshot of this report is that the current method (the Hill method) is one of the best ones ever implemented or seriously proposed. But the triviality of this issue can be judged from the fact that this report shows that if the Hill method were replaced by the simplest and earliest proposed method (the Hamilton-Vinton ranked fractions method) only one single seat in the 2001 House would have changed hands.

Given the extreme favoritism to tiny states that the current Senate and Presidential representation schemes provide (the latter through the Electoral College), it is not at all evident that there is a problem here in need of fixing.

Ummm, I only see one representative listed for Wyoming on the official US House of Representatives website. The guy wasn't suggesting adding representatives to Wyoming, but to Montana and some other states. Montana had a population of 902,195 in the 2000 census and 1 representative. That works out to a voting power of 0.00011% per person in Montana. California had a population of 33,871,648 and has 53 representatives (0.000156% per person).

His model wasn't trying to be fair, just less unfair. To be fair Wyoming would either need a fractional vote or the size of the House would have to be increased until each person in the house represented about 500,000 people. Since this isn't possible from his model's point of view he does the next best thing (removing votes from large states that have fewer people per representative to smaller states that currently have more people per representative).

With that said, I agree that small states don't need more representation in the House. They are more than adequately compensated by having 2 votes in the Senate. To put in perspective how powerful that is, imagine that even if San Francisco had 2 senators the Wyoming senators would still be representing fewer people. San Francisco has a population of about 750,000 (4th largest in California) vs. the population of 500,000 for the entire state of Wyoming.

... it could be argued that hotlinking is not distribution or any kind of copyright violation.

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
            preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
            dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
            recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
            other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
            adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
            elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent
            an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

To set down or present (ideas, for example) in a new or different arrangement

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Perhaps only the young people you refer to remember their civics class from high school and are aware that laws limiting video game content or who can buy which video games are unconstitutional by the first amendment. It has been shown in court multiple times that the states may not make such laws either. The laws again porn are likely unconstitutional as well, but they have been held up in court as the first amendment apparently does not apply to material the justices believe is devoid of moral content or something like that.

The federal drinking age stands on rather questionable constitutional grounds. It is set up so that the states have to agree to a drinking age of 21 or the federal government will refuse to give them highway funding, and no state can afford to turn down that money.

My problem is not so much that the rules are stupid nor do I necessary believe their negation should be law, in fact I would have no problem with voluntary age restrictions enforced by most retailers like the well-known system for movies. Many posters have already commented that that is how it currently works. On the other hand, I do have a problem with a government which ignores its own rules about what kinds of laws it may pass. If they want to censor video games, they may do it as soon as they pass a "Censorship Amendment" giving Congress the right to make censorship laws. But I doubt that will happen.

This "law" should not be "overturned." It is not a "law." It is Rules of Civil Procedure for parties in litigation in Federal court. You can read them here. The rule you want is R. 34.

This post does not constitute legal advice and is not endorsed by Jackson Walker LLP

It was the "partial birth abortion" bill.

Good thing, since you guys have some catching up to do. Seriously.

I'm in his district. His beliefs actually match the Slashdot hive's beliefs on most issues (net neutrality, war in iraq, etc). I've always thought he would be a good interview candidate for the site.

http://www.house.gov/waxman/

From the House Judiciary Committee's report on the bill:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX), Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), and Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ric Keller (R-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property ("PRO IP") Act of 2007" to combat what they say is an increasing problem...

How I wish it was a single-party problem; at least the solution would be clear. The sad truth however is that legislators of all stripes are in on it. Even worse, so is the judiciary (including the Supreme Court, in decisions like this ), the branch "whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void" [The Federalist, No. 78 (A. Hamilton)].

An interesting note from your link:

Concerned about the the broad effect of federal forfeiture laws, Henry Hyde (R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Chairman) and John Conyers (D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the Committee) teamed up to introduce the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in a rare display of bipartisan unity. ... Disturbed by this and other similar stories of excess, the House members voted to approve H.R. 1658 to curb this abuse.

Note that Conyers is the current chairman.

Members of the House Judciary Committee

So 2010 is the end of US manned spaceflight. There won't be a replacement for the Shuttle. NASA tried four times before, and never even got close to flight hardware. Why should this time be any different?

The Shuttle was designed in the 1960s. Back then, NASA could hire top people. A huge number of experienced aircraft designers were available. Today, who goes into aerospace? NASA is sometimes called "the world's largest sheltered workshop". Aerospace is now so slow-paced that it takes decades to build anything.

The GAO Report on the Orion program indicates that there are significant problems. The most serious is the usual one with large spacecraft - weight growth in the upper stages, requiring huge increases in the size of lower stages. NASA's plan involves adding another section to the Shuttle-type solid rocket boosters, and there are real questions as to whether the resulting stack will be strong enough. (Remember, that's how Challenger blew up; failure at the solid rocket booster joints.)

No bill number, but there is a press release about it from house.gov.

Los Angeles: You voted for the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to regulate medical procedures?

Rep. Ron Paul: I think that's a good point, because I don't brag about that vote. People could argue that there's a contradiction there. My only argument was that abortion-on-demand nationally was created by a court order, not Congress, so I was trying to reverse that. I would not argue, though, that it was a perfect way of doing that. If the court had not already ruled and legalized it, I would not have voted that way.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

[...]

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.