After a year in Washington representing the 10th congressional district, Cong. William Keating came to Martha’s Vineyard Monday with a message: Like most Americans, he’s angry. Angry about the dysfunction he sees in Congress, he said, and threats to what he calls core American values, opportunities for education and advancement.
“We could be moving the country in the right direction and be more helpful . . . the bad news is, because some of the ideologically-centered individuals in congress that have their beliefs supercede common sense and the very foundation of our country, they’re creating a situation where those initiatives aren’t being done. Does that make me angry? You bet your life.”
“The American Dream is that you have a chance. That chance is being cut off,” Mr. Keating said during a conversation with Gazette editorial staff that ranged from nationwide issues that resonate on the Island, like the health of small businesses and access to education, to issues more Vineyard-specific: access to health care and ongoing negotiations for Islandwide cable television access.
In the last few months, congressional redistricting led Mr. Keating and his wife to relocate from Quincy to their home at Monument Beach in Bourne, where the congressman said he is now a voting resident. The congressman will run for re-election in November for the new ninth district that does not include Quincy and will incorporate parts of New Bedford as well as the Cape and Islands. (Mr. Keating said he might be the first congress member since the 1800s to represent the Cape area while actually living there.)
The new district integrates coastal areas and is largely agricultural, Mr. Keating said. And rather than changing his priorities, he said, representing a new district “reinforced them a little bit, because my priorities have been focused, when you look back, on jobs.”
Jobs are a recurring theme for him. “To me, the job issue just resonates all the way through all the other issues,” he said.
To aid small businesses in this area, Mr. Keating— who was appointed to the committee on small business — said he hopes to ease U.S. restrictions that make it hard for international travelers to obtain visas. “We’re leaving money, and jobs, on the table,” he said.
Mr. Keating was one of four sponsors for the AGREE [American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment, and Entrepreneurship] act, a bipartisan initiative that would “free up capital for innovative industries” through tax considerations for things like education and technology. “Even a portion of it is a step,” he said, touting the jobs that small, innovative businesses could provide.
Locally, hope might rest with infrastructure jobs, such as dredging ports and bridge repair, and biotechnology, especially in marine industries. “There’s still a great opportunity down the road for marine technologies, and marine business growth, in this whole region,” he said. “This whole region can be a center, the way the Silicon Valley was a center years ago, for marine [industries].”
Mr. Keating took issue with the science behind fishing allotments. “Science isn’t verified the way it should be,” he said. The fishing industry is small businesses, he said, and “there has to be some predictability.” He is against the current conservative approach, and for taking a step back. “If you’re not sure about your facts, why would you then compound the stakes by taking the most conservative approach in terms of allotment?” he said. Taking more of a middle ground approach by relaxing some of those allotment restrictions, he said, would “have a significant impact on what quotas would be.”
He also acknowledged that geography compounds Vineyard issues. “There is a thread of issues here that all deal with access,” Mr. Keating said.
The congressman weighed in on one of the most salient local access issues: ongoing negotiations with Comcast to approve Internet access. He praised the Edgartown selectmen for opting out of talks with Comcast until a contract includes service to Chappaquiddick and suggested he will help with the effort, saying, “We’ll continue to leverage whatever influence we have.” And he voiced his own personal frustrations with Comcast, saying that he, too, is plagued with cable television problems. “I can’t tell you if my TV’s going to work,” he said with a laugh. “My wife has them on speed dial.”
Turning serious and on a far larger scale, Mr. Keating said families are having discussions about not being able to afford higher education.
“And that’s not what our country has been about, for the last half century, at least. What’s at stake right now — we’re at the crossroads — is the very essence of our country, it’s the American Dream. And that dream is opportunity, and hope, and right now, there’s increasing blocks to that staircase,” he said, continuing:
“The staircase is one of opportunity. Now some people have many more flights than others to get up that staircase. Some people have the elevator available to them. Some people are born on the top floor. But the issue we have right now is not to evict the person on the top floor or shut down the elevator, but to make sure that staircase is still open, and right now, in congress, funding for education is being cut and threatened at a very fundamental level.”
Mr. Keating’s trip included a visit to the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital and a meeting with veterans at the American Legion. Later in the day, he was peppered with questions at an all-Island meeting at the Capawock Theatre in Vineyard Haven. Joined by state Rep. Tim Madden and state Sen. Dan Wolf, the congressman fielded questions from a crowd of well over 100, on subjects that included wind and solar panels at the state forest and the airport, frustrations about federal regulations on small businesses, funding for the restoration of coastal banks and beaches and higher education access on the Vineyard. One young resident voiced his displeasure with parts of the National Defense Authorization Act, which received a yes vote from Mr. Keating.
When it comes to his second year in office, Mr. Keating offered few predictions. “It’s about the direction we’re going,” he said, cautioning against quick fixes. “It’s not going to happen by the next election.”
This article appears in January 13, 2012.
Representative Keating answered a young man on this important issue by telling him to call his office. Actually, when a man – or woman – young or old – asks a question of a congressman, it is the duty of the congressman to respond so that the question can be addressed publicly. That being said, here is what the Huffington Post has an an answer to that question.
Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.
One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.
Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.
In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.
The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.
So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens’ turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.
It’s a disgusting show that Graham is pulling. He has made an example of how a single U.S. citizen might become a turncoat and because of that possible risk, the citizen’s right to a trial and jury has been abolished.
Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:
Section 1022’s use of the word ‘requirement’ also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022’s purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to ‘military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.’ The term “requirement” does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision.
He merely states that the people have ‘misinterpreted’ the provisions within the bill.
This is a situation in which they are able to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong. I will repeat: “They are allowed through the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong.”
Similar to Griffin’s response, President Obama has released a statement regarding the H.R. 1540
(NDAA):
Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts.
It doesn’t matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren’t. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.
These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world… influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated that there are laws regarding terrorist suspects in America in place by the Department of Justice. Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.
I look to my well-supplied pantry filled with foods my loving mother had purchased from Costco. I’m not one to count it all, but I’d say it would last my entire family over a week.
My father legally owns a handgun. There’s something about protecting his family that is important to him, so he keeps a gun nearby.
I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry?
Can I be seen as a terrorist under the definition of terrorism? Yes I can. Will I? I hope not.
Representative Keating showed his slick political skills by ducking practically all questions at the public meeting. When asked by Peter Goodale about a very costly replacement for some machinery due to emission regulations the response from all three elected officials was almost incoherent but they seemed to say that our elected officials needed to pay more attention to the details of legislation that they endorse.
It was truly ironic that he ended the meeting by admitting he was not conversant on NDAA given the controversy and generally against liberal democratic orthodoxy. From my perspective he proved his own point on legislators not being aware of the impact of laws they pass.
When asked about how he might assist in bring access to higher education to the Vineyard he never addressed the issue but described how much he supports education and rambled about a story of a fellow passengers bright children who could not access quality education. He never proposed an idea which could be pursued.
He was very good at pointing out all of his committee memberships which I suppose should be impressive but it appeared to be bald electioneering to my ear rather than contributions to a town hall.
Dan Wolf made a good comment albeit somewhat condescending that voters should vote for people that reflect their own values. From my perspective too many people vote a political affiliation rather than really getting to know and understand a candidates values that will guide that individual in supporting specific legislation. Unfortunately once elected many legislators vote strictly by party line rather than by their values. This is the dysfunction we presently have in Washington DC.
Dan Wolf was also quick to lay blame on “large corporations” and wishing to tax them more to remedy a variety of economic ills. I certainly am not defending all the actions of large corporations but missing from all dialogs is who actually pays the additional taxes. All US corporations are ultimately owned by individuals, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, retirement accounts or pension funds. When a corporation is taxed more it is the individual shareholders who ultimately pay the tax through reduced dividends or market value. The dialog should really be addressed to why a particular group of shareholders should bear the burden of additional taxes rather than the anonymous “large corporation”.
I was very happy to have access to three of our elected officials and hope they continue to visit the Vineyard. I really hope that they listen and respond in public meetings with straightforward commentary rather than waxing on with stories about grandmother’s trunk and stairways.
Congressman Keating should purchase a tie and wear it. Mr.Donegan and Mr. Smith set the tone for this for this event.
Edwin Miller