Wally Votes to Cut Public Radio Funds

Shocked! Shocked, I say!

In an e-mail statement sent Friday to the Enterprise-Record, Herger wrote that public broadcasting is a popular program, but Congress needs to make many discretionary program cuts reduce the budget deficit - projected to be $487 billion next year - while funding priorities such as the war on terror.

"While these spending decisions are difficult and, in some cases, may not be popular, these uniquely challenging times require that we tighten our belts as Americans and make some difficult choices " Herger wrote.

So let me sum that up for you: tax cuts for the top 1% are more important than the "war on terror" and they should also be exempt from any belt tightening. The other 99% of us can just suck it up and love America. Thanks, Wally.

Does Wally Stand with Rove?

Sent via e-mail.

Recently Karl Rove speaking to a conservative audience said that "liberals" wanted to give the terrorists therapy, file indictments and that I basically want to see US troops die. Recently Tom DeLay stood up and said that it wasn't slander, it was the truth. Karl Rove and Tom DeLay have basically called me a traitor to my country and a coward.

I have three questions that I'm asking you to address.

Do you stand behind Karl Rove's words? (The full text of his remarks can be found online -- I have not seem them posted on the White House website yet)

Do you believe that because people consider me a "liberal" that I am a traitor to my country?

Do you believe that I want to see US troops die because I am considered a "liberal?"

Thank you for your time in this matter,

Patrick Berry

Wally Respons on H.R. 683

Apparently I never posted my Action Alert message on H.R. 683. But never fear, here is Wally's response.

Dear Patrick:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H.R. 683, the Trademark Dilution Revision. Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

As you may know, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas introduced H.R. 683 on February 9,2005. This legislation aims to clarify the intent of Congress in an earlier law, the Trademark Act of 1946, with respect to "dilution" of trademarks. Dilution is defined as the lessening of a trademark's capacity to identify and distinguish goods and services. The likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception on the consumer's part is not considered to be necessary for a dilution to occur. However, in the 2003 case of Mosely v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the 1946 law required a trademark owner to prove "actual harm," even for a charge of dilution. H.R. 683 clarifies that a judge may consider other relevant factors in determining whether dilution has occurred.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 683 by a 411-8 vote on April 19, 2005. I supported this bill because I believe it refines existing trademark law and strikes a more reasonable balance between the interests of trademark owners and other parties. As a strong supporter of private property rights, I believe it is important to ensure that the law adequately protects trademark ownership.

While I understand your concern that the dilution provisions of H.R. 683 could create an unfair advantage for established companies, the bill also aims to reduce trademark dilution lawsuits by narrowing the definition of "trademark" and listing specific factors required to prove: dilution. Additionally, the sponsors of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act recognized the importance of free expression by explicitly exempting fair use of a trademark for "purposes of. identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods and .services of the famous mark owner."

Following its approval by the House, H.R. 683 now moves to the Senate for further consideration. If you have not already done so, you may wish to contact either or both of your U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, so that they may have the benefit of hearing your views.

Again, thank you for your correspondence. As always, please don't hesitate to contact me in the future regarding this or any other federal issue important to you.

Sincerely,
Wally Herger
Member of Congress

Wally Responds on H.R. 550

Back in March I took action to let Wally know about a good E-Voting bill. Here is his response.

Dear Patrick:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 550, the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005." I appreciate your thoughts on this subject.

As you may know, Representative Rush Holt introduced H.R. 550 on February 2,2005. Specifically, the bill seeks to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to provide for an extension of time for States to request payments for activities to improve administration of elections and for replacement of punch card or lever voting machines. The bill would also repeal the exemption of the Election Assistance Commission from certain Government contracting requirements (thus requiring the Commission to advertise for proposals for purchases and contracts for supplies or services), and revise audit capacity requirements to require the voting system to produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system. Following its introduction, this measure was referred to the Committee on House Administration for further consideration.

While I do not serve on the committee of jurisdiction over this issue, please be assured I will continue to monitor its progress. Should it come to the floor of the House, I will keep your views on this matter uppermost in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Mail Call

Some mail bags fell from a USPS truck in Yreka. It's all been recovered and the USPS assured Wally everything was under control. It's good to know that Wally is concerned with identity theft. I wonder how he syncs that up with a Nation ID card?

More on AIDS Trials for Foster Children

I'm still trying very hard not to be cynical about Wally's stance on this. myDNA has a new more details on the situation.

The research was federally funded by the National Institute of Health and offered a means for foster children from Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, and New York to seek a possible cure or treatment for their disease.

It is alleged that the researchers did not adhere to the guidelines of the "Protection of Human Subjects," which states that any investigator using human test subjects must aquire legally effective informed consent from the subject, the parents, or a legal guardian. Since these foster children were not of legal age to consent and lacked a parent or legal guardian to offer such consent, researchers promised the NIH to involve medical advocates in their clinical trials, but failed to hold true to their word.

Initially I was worried that this was about restricting HIV tests, but that is clearly not the case.