Slashdot Mirror

No, not surprised at all. Sony has been a real bastard for a long time now.

Sony's Restaurant

Retropod

Now I finally know what case mod I'm going to do! I'm going to the flea market and finding an old Sony cabinet TV, a really old b/w model with the tiny screen, and making a desk/case mod out of it! Inspired by mindless corporate greed!

Speaking of "a certain company" I have not bought any of their products
since they pulled this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:S22MR1- 31:

Sony Floerndo owned 'Sony's Place' restaurant in NYC for 25 to 30
years. At least until she was attacked by the lawyers of
"a certain company" and forced to change her own restaurant's name.

DiabloJunky

The entirety of H.R.2622 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and the specific section SEC. 216. DISPOSAL OF CONSUMER REPORT INFORMATION AND RECORDS.

The actual imortant part of this is the regulations (which may be yet to be created) for what needs to be done to appropriately destroy associated data. Hopeflly most people should be able to get away with just doing a single write of zeroes or pseudo-random data, while places like equifax should be required to do a bit more work. (because their collections would be especially valuable).
Of course, knowing the way that the political system works, it's probably going to end up being the other way 'round./p

The entirety of H.R.2622 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and the specific section SEC. 216. DISPOSAL OF CONSUMER REPORT INFORMATION AND RECORDS.

The actual imortant part of this is the regulations (which may be yet to be created) for what needs to be done to appropriately destroy associated data. Hopeflly most people should be able to get away with just doing a single write of zeroes or pseudo-random data, while places like equifax should be required to do a bit more work. (because their collections would be especially valuable).
Of course, knowing the way that the political system works, it's probably going to end up being the other way 'round.

The Library of Congress has a webpage that details how to preserve all sorts of collections. Many of us have extensive collections not of just music but also books, photographs, etc., and preservation can be just as important as duplication.

You need to read up a bit on something called a "model release"
This link might help too
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html#Publishe d

"Photographs of private persons, who are not celebrities or public figures, can be published without their consent only in an editorial context. Even editorial use is perilous, however, if any individual who is depicted is held libeled, held up to ridicule, or misrepresented."

You are wrong. Look up Right of Publicity and Right of Privacy as it relates to photography.

How do you think all those paparazzi's make their money?

Being a public or newsworthy figure changes the rules.

According to the text of the amendment in question, it would have to be ratified within the next seven years, not next 100. And it would require 3/4 of the states, not 2/3.

"Since the Republicans are asking me to fund a war I'm firmly opposed to..."

Perhaps you'd better go check the Congressional record:

An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR012 68:@@@R

Not that it's necessary since it passed 100-0, but here's the actual record of votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1& vote=00117#position

Likewise the original Congressional authorization for war was similarly bi-partisan:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ001 14:@@@R
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2& vote=00237#position

Text of the law:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Blaming the war on the Republicans is convenient, but unfortuately ungrounded in fact.

"Since the Republicans are asking me to fund a war I'm firmly opposed to..."

Perhaps you'd better go check the Congressional record:

An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR012 68:@@@R

Not that it's necessary since it passed 100-0, but here's the actual record of votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1& vote=00117#position

Likewise the original Congressional authorization for war was similarly bi-partisan:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ001 14:@@@R
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2& vote=00237#position

Text of the law:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Blaming the war on the Republicans is convenient, but unfortuately ungrounded in fact.

No, I've been too busy making artificial diamonds so that I could connect them to my new GPU to squeeze out that extra percentage of performance, so that I could calculate just how many LoC per-second I could transfer using BPL.

Whoops, sorry about the unattributed quote. I don't have the foggiest notion of where I got it, probably wikipedia.

Here's a nifty Emancipation Timeline courtesy of the Library of Congress. It contains link to the draft version, the beta version, and the final version. And just think, my fifth grade History teacher taught us that he wrote it on an envelope on the way to event.

Whoops, sorry about the unattributed quote. I don't have the foggiest notion of where I got it, probably wikipedia.

Here's a nifty Emancipation Timeline courtesy of the Library of Congress. It contains link to the draft version, the beta version, and the final version. And just think, my fifth grade History teacher taught us that he wrote it on an envelope on the way to event.

Whoops, sorry about the unattributed quote. I don't have the foggiest notion of where I got it, probably wikipedia.

Here's a nifty Emancipation Timeline courtesy of the Library of Congress. It contains link to the draft version, the beta version, and the final version. And just think, my fifth grade History teacher taught us that he wrote it on an envelope on the way to event.

Whoops, sorry about the unattributed quote. I don't have the foggiest notion of where I got it, probably wikipedia.

Here's a nifty Emancipation Timeline courtesy of the Library of Congress. It contains link to the draft version, the beta version, and the final version. And just think, my fifth grade History teacher taught us that he wrote it on an envelope on the way to event.

(Apologies for using X as my separator character. Stupid lameness filter!)

I did look at his legislative record. He's not a Libertarian. If he were, he would be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. He would not support government intrusion into individual liberties in an unconstitutional manner.

Ron Paul is fiscally conservative AND socially conservative (including supporting federal gov't intrusion into your life). That makes him a Republican -- or at least, it makes him what the Republicans USED to be. (They're now fiscally liberal and socially conservative.)

Here are some gems from his record. These are bills he AUTHORED, not just voted "yes" on. I'm not going to build all the links, but this comes from a simple "bill sponsor" search on http://thomas.loc.gov/ -- see for yourself!

xxxxxxxxxxxx

20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

A bill to define abortion as murder. No fiscal component at all. Does nothing to encourage small government. It's just social conservatism at the expense of individual rights. Not Libertarian.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Fiscally conservative, yes. Also very socially conservative -- not a hallmark of Libertarianism. It outlaws federal funding of ANY family planning activity. What if we want to educate poor people not to have children they can't afford to support? Not permitted under this bill.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/1/2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts.

NOT Libertarian.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do.

Not Libertarian.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

27. H.R.1657 : To ensure financial regulations do not harm economic competitiveness, nor deprive Americans of due process of law, by repealing provisions of Federal law that hold corporate chief executive officers criminally liable for the content and quality of their companies' financial report... [ed. note: Repeals Sarbanes-Oxley]

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Again, runs against Libertarian ideals. Regulating interstate trade (including national equity markets) IS what the federal gov't is supposed to be doing.

Removing the requirement that CEOs be responsible for the reports they issue to the public is bad for the free market. A Libertarian would support accuracy and accountability of information supplied to the market.

Not Libertarian.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Translation: To ensure the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that *I* want the Framers to have intended.

Sorry, sir. You're a Congressman, not a Jus

I'd say the Lusitania was the pretext that started the ball rolling.

Not that our government was neutral, but the people decidedly were. I think the germans realized our government was trying to pull us into the war, hence the zimmerman telegram.

This is a bogus argument. If Senators had real concerns over the content of the bill, they could have filibustered (or threatened to) for a few days until they had time to analyze its provisions.

There wasn't even a cloture vote. They just passed it, 98-1. Besides, many of the provisions were taken from other bills introduced nearly three weeks prior, including one sponsored by Tom Daschle.

This is a bogus argument. If Senators had real concerns over the content of the bill, they could have filibustered (or threatened to) for a few days until they had time to analyze its provisions.

There wasn't even a cloture vote. They just passed it, 98-1. Besides, many of the provisions were taken from other bills introduced nearly three weeks prior, including one sponsored by Tom Daschle.

Thankfully, the version that was passed in the Senate had the sections that allowed this removed. I was suprised that more of an uproar was not made over these provisions that seem to me to be wholly unconstitutional.

Actually, the way to "recind" an established law is to make a new law stating that the old one "is hereby repealed" (Acts of congress are rife with this expression -- searching on THOMAS gave 50 hits from the current session alone). A simple majority suffices to enact the new law, just like it did the original one.

Even without super-majority requirements, enacting laws is still a non-trivial task. Formally Congress is always free to repeal old laws, of course. However, in practice a law with a sunset provision is much more limited than one without. The point is that they must debate the usefulness of the law come the sunset point if they want to keep it in the books.

Okay, just realized that link doesn't work- that's really annoying that the links are temporary and there's no way to link to an item in the text. I can understand the use of legalese being a necessity, but they seriously need some usability work on the site.

Anyway, let's try that again go here and find the section that says "[Struck out->] SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS. [-Struck out]"

See Sec. 102 of Version 5, the final PP (Public Print) version of the bill.

and yes, they are horribly unreadable, but that's legalese. It's necessary in order for it to be specific and in order for the legislators to address specific sections when debating them. One could say the same thing about IEEE RFC's, right?

Bill Status
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, at approximately 10:45 a.m., on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.

Page S4794 The five versions of the bill can be found here

action on the bill
120. S.AMDT.429 to H.R.1268 To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence. Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Proposed amendment SA 429 withdrawn in Senate.

I don't see anything later than that update, regarding this issue.

Now, I've never looked at Thomas before, so I could be very confused. Does this mean that the ammendment has been killed? Also, I'm trying to find out how the debate/vote actually went. Can anyone anyone help an interested citizen figure it out?

Bill Status
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, at approximately 10:45 a.m., on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.

Page S4794 The five versions of the bill can be found here

action on the bill
120. S.AMDT.429 to H.R.1268 To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence. Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Proposed amendment SA 429 withdrawn in Senate.

I don't see anything later than that update, regarding this issue.

Now, I've never looked at Thomas before, so I could be very confused. Does this mean that the ammendment has been killed? Also, I'm trying to find out how the debate/vote actually went. Can anyone anyone help an interested citizen figure it out?

Bill Status
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, at approximately 10:45 a.m., on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.

Page S4794 The five versions of the bill can be found here

action on the bill
120. S.AMDT.429 to H.R.1268 To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence. Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Proposed amendment SA 429 withdrawn in Senate.

I don't see anything later than that update, regarding this issue.

Now, I've never looked at Thomas before, so I could be very confused. Does this mean that the ammendment has been killed? Also, I'm trying to find out how the debate/vote actually went. Can anyone anyone help an interested citizen figure it out?

who would like to read the actual bill instead of all this ultra liberal rhetoric posted here on Slashdot, look here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./tem p/~c109oh1u9C::

I'd post the relevant content however I keep running into the "Lameness filter"... funny how a Bill that just passed the Senate is lame by Slashdot's standards... whatever.

Maybe you didn't notice all of the [Struck out->] tags, Real ID was struck out.

Full text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/ ~c109rLmYgC/

In the Senate Version of the bill (Summary here), the entire section of Title VII is struck out and dropped. This Title VII is the title that contained the Read-ID act.

The House version of the bill on the other hand, included that section. (Summary here)

And to verify what I know about the process briefly here.

Then when the conference report came in, that section was put back, and approved by the Senate. And the actual text about driver licenses and the beginning of the whole part.

Because the Senate already passed the conference version.... it looks like doomsday for those whom are worried about this.

In the Senate Version of the bill (Summary here), the entire section of Title VII is struck out and dropped. This Title VII is the title that contained the Read-ID act.

The House version of the bill on the other hand, included that section. (Summary here)

And to verify what I know about the process briefly here.

Then when the conference report came in, that section was put back, and approved by the Senate. And the actual text about driver licenses and the beginning of the whole part.

Because the Senate already passed the conference version.... it looks like doomsday for those whom are worried about this.

In the Senate Version of the bill (Summary here), the entire section of Title VII is struck out and dropped. This Title VII is the title that contained the Read-ID act.

The House version of the bill on the other hand, included that section. (Summary here)

And to verify what I know about the process briefly here.

Then when the conference report came in, that section was put back, and approved by the Senate. And the actual text about driver licenses and the beginning of the whole part.

Because the Senate already passed the conference version.... it looks like doomsday for those whom are worried about this.

In the Senate Version of the bill (Summary here), the entire section of Title VII is struck out and dropped. This Title VII is the title that contained the Read-ID act.

The House version of the bill on the other hand, included that section. (Summary here)

And to verify what I know about the process briefly here.

Then when the conference report came in, that section was put back, and approved by the Senate. And the actual text about driver licenses and the beginning of the whole part.

Because the Senate already passed the conference version.... it looks like doomsday for those whom are worried about this.

In the Senate Version of the bill (Summary here), the entire section of Title VII is struck out and dropped. This Title VII is the title that contained the Read-ID act.

The House version of the bill on the other hand, included that section. (Summary here)

And to verify what I know about the process briefly here.

Then when the conference report came in, that section was put back, and approved by the Senate. And the actual text about driver licenses and the beginning of the whole part.

Because the Senate already passed the conference version.... it looks like doomsday for those whom are worried about this.

I've looked at the text of H.R.1268, but I can't find Real ID in it, the only reference to Real ID is struck out, is this because I'm a moron or is it hiding very well?

I see no references to Licenses that aren't struck out either, besides a reverence to fishing and hunting Licenses.

Did Real ID disappear and is all of this mute or does struck out mean something besides what I think it does?

Here's the full text so you can help me understand where Real ID went.

...but doesn't this say the amendment was withdrawn? (If the link fails to work, look up HR 1268, then Senate Amendment 429, on http://thomas.loc.gov.)

...but doesn't this say the amendment was withdrawn? (If the link fails to work, look up HR 1268, then Senate Amendment 429, on http://thomas.loc.gov.)

here is the a link to the appropriate part of the Real-ID part of the bill that was passed that basically enforces a national ID.

The Real-ID was STRUCK from the final version of this bill. In other words, it was not passed.

Real-ID section itself
Summary of entire bill

Do a "Page Find" for "Real ID." It comes up with "[Struck out->] DIVISION B--REAL ID ACT OF 2005 [-Struck out]"

The Real ID section was removed from the bill. Perhaps all of those faxes from yesterday paid off, or perhaps the rest of the senators wised up and struck this part on their own. Regardless, the end result is more or less what was desired, at least by me.

As another (minor) point, the Slashdot headline is, um, wrong. Yes, the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill was passed unanimously, but it *might* be a good idea to reflect the truth about the Real ID part of it.

The Real-ID was STRUCK from the final version of this bill. In other words, it was not passed.

Real-ID section itself
Summary of entire bill

Do a "Page Find" for "Real ID." It comes up with "[Struck out->] DIVISION B--REAL ID ACT OF 2005 [-Struck out]"

The Real ID section was removed from the bill. Perhaps all of those faxes from yesterday paid off, or perhaps the rest of the senators wised up and struck this part on their own. Regardless, the end result is more or less what was desired, at least by me.

As another (minor) point, the Slashdot headline is, um, wrong. Yes, the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill was passed unanimously, but it *might* be a good idea to reflect the truth about the Real ID part of it.

Actually, what it really says is this:

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

And, if you look in the public text version, you will see that this section has been "struck-out".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/ ~c109mTXzzT

-benjo

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

"If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

"If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."

Just for quick reference, here is the law itself. The fifth one is the code that was passed, while the sixth has a little more easily-read version of the same text.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:120:. /temp/~bdagr5::

Clearly you haven't read the text of HR418. It essentially is requiring a standard layout on all DMV issued licenses. It is not another card in addition to your driver's license.

Maybe next time, before commenting, you should research the subject first. In this case, a good place to start would be http://thomas.loc.gov/search.html put in "HR418" and try reading.

Dumb Shit.

The most recent action on this bill occurred in the House on May 5th. The most current version is H.R.1268.RFS off the link the grandparent provides (H.R. 1268 Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House).

The link does not list bill versions by order of date so you have to work it out from the bill history (click on any bill version, click on link to Bill Summary & Status, then click on All Congressional Actions) -- in this case, the bill started in the House (.RH), was modified, passed, and sent to the Senate (.RS), was modified, passed, and sent back to the House (there's an entry about the Senate ordering the measure printed as passed -- .PP?), who have again modified and passed it (.EH) and now it awaits Senate action (.RFS).

I'd give proper links, but any query on there that contains a 'temp' in the URL is, well, temporarily cached.

If this were going to be voted on in the Senate tomorrow, there would be a senate bill listed at the LOC website. I can't find one. The bill everyone keeps pointing out, HR 418, is a House bill, which has already passed. Here's the link if you haven't seen it enough times already:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.418 :

Just to check, I called my state representatives. They don't seem to have reliable information either. John Cornyn's office said the Real ID Bill had been stripped from the appropriations bill, sent to committee, and definitely would not be voted on this week.

But Kay Bailey Hutchison's office said that while the thing called "Real ID Act" had been removed from the appropriations bill, portions of the actual text of the bill had been moved back into the appropriations bill without the "Real ID" name attached. She said there was no way of finding out which parts of the Real ID act will be in the final appropriations bill until it's published in a few days. She also said there would be no vote until after it was published, so there should be time to read it contact representatives again if needed. But she didn't know what the designation of the bill would be, making it a bit hard to look up at LOC.

I'm worried by the disagreement between the two offices. Has anyone else called their rep to find out what's going on?

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

Hmm. Lame. Looks like there is sort of a "perma-link" at the top of the bill though. Maybe that will work.