Without arguments or briefs, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just erased a death sentence against a Melbourne, Florida man, reversing the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court, finding that a convicted murderer's defense lawyer rendered ineffective counsel when he failed to put on evidence of the murderer's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from Korean War military service.
The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous per curiam decision showed Florida (like Texas) needs judges and legislators who are more sensitive to constitutional rights.
Florida Supreme Court Justice Harry Lee Anstead, writing for himself and another justice, dissented in the death penalty case in 1990. Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060 (1990).
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
STAND DOWN PROJECT TEXAS == Porter v. McCollum
Porter v. McCollum
"Post-combat stress as a defense," is the title of Lyle Denniston's SCOTUS Blog post.
The Supreme Court, in a sign of the times for a nation at war on two fronts, on Monday put defense lawyers on notice that they should be prepared to use evidence of “post-traumatic stress disorder” to try to save accused veterans from the death penalty. Ruling without full briefing or a hearing, and with no dissent noted, the Court apparently overturned the death sentence of a Florida veteran whose “combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man,” as the Court put it in Porter v. McCollum (08-10537), involving Korean war veteran George Porter, Jr. The unsigned opinion can be found here.
“Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did,” the opinion said. “The relevance of Porter’s extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.”
Because the case turned mainly on the specific facts of the prosecution and defense of Porter for murdering his former girlfriend and her boyfriend, it is not clear that the ruling will have a direct impact on other criminal cases in which combat stress might be a key factor. However, parts of the Court’s opinion read as if the Justices did intend to speak more broadly.
It noted that post-traumatic stress disorder “is not uncommon among veterans returning from combat,” and cited testimony before Congress this year by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki that “approximately 23 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at a VA medical facility had been preliminarily diagnoses with PTSD.” It also noted that, in Porter’s case specifically, a medical expert testified that his symptoms “would ‘easily’ warrant a diagnosis” of PTSD.
Adam Liptak writes, "Justices Say War Trauma Must be Weighed in Capital Cases," in the New York Times.
A death penalty lawyer’s failure to present evidence of the trauma his client suffered in combat in the Korean War requires a new sentencing hearing, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday.
The decision makes clear that lawyers for clients facing the death penalty must present evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from military service if it is available.
The unsigned 15-page decision displayed unusual solicitude for a death-row inmate, noting that “our nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines.”
The defendant, George Porter Jr., was convicted in 1987 of murdering his former girlfriend, Evelyn Williams, and her boyfriend, Walter Burrows, in Melbourne, Fla., the previous year. Mr. Porter represented himself for part of his trial and then decided to plead guilty.
He turned to a court-appointed lawyer, Sam Bardwell, to represent him in the sentencing hearing. Mr. Bardwell, who had never represented a defendant in a capital sentencing proceeding, did not interview any of his client’s relatives and did not obtain any school, medical or military service records. He presented only one witness, Mr. Porter’s ex-wife.
Mr. Bardwell’s investigation, Monday’s decision said, was not “even cursory.” Mr. Bardwell has explained that his client had been fatalistic and uncooperative. He did not respond to a message seeking comment on Monday.
Mr. Bardwell’s conduct “did not reflect reasonable professional judgment,” the decision said. “Had Porter’s counsel been effective, the judge and jury would have learned,” among other things, “about Porter’s heroic military service in two of the most critical — and horrific — battles of the Korean War.”
Today's Chicago Tribune carries, "Supreme Court cites combat stress in reversing death penalty," by David Savage.
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a death sentence for a decorated veteran who fought on the front lines of the Korean War, ruling for the first time that combat stress must be considered by a jury before it hands down the harshest punishment.
"Our nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as [George] Porter did," the justices said in a unanimous, unsigned opinion.
Porter, 76, was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1986 shooting and killing his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend during a drunken rage in Melbourne, Fla. But his jury was never told, and his appointed lawyer did not know, of his valiant military service more than three decades earlier.
In the past, the high court has set aside just a few death sentences because a defense lawyer failed to tell jurors of crucial "mitigating evidence" that would likely have persuaded them to spare his life.
Monday's decision appears to be the first in which the court cited "post-traumatic stress disorder" from military combat as the kind of crucial evidence that calls for leniency. It comes as thousands of U.S. soldiers are being treated for the disorder from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both the Florida Supreme Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld Porter's death sentence, despite his overlooked military record, but the high court said those decisions were mistaken.
"George Porter is a veteran who was both wounded and decorated for his active participation in two major engagements during the Korean War. His combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man," the justices said.
The court's opinion put defense lawyers in capital cases on notice that they have a duty to look into their client's background and to tell jurors about any mitigating evidence that would call for leniency.
In Porter's case, his appointed lawyer testified later that he had only one short meeting with his client before the trial and that he did not meet with Porter's family and was unaware of his military record.
Tony Mauro writes, "Supreme Court Sides With Florida Inmate on Ineffective Assistance," for the BLT.
Returning from its Thanksgiving break, the Supreme Court today issued a powerful unsigned "per curiam" opinion agreeing that the ineffective assistance of counsel for Florida death row inmate George Porter Jr. prejudiced the sentence he received after his murder trial in 1988. He was convicted in the murder of a former girlfriend and her boyfriend. The Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit previously rejected his ineffective assistance claim.
Ruling in Porter v. McCollum, available here, the Court extensively detailed Porter's "horrible family life" and his trying Korean War experiences that earned him two Purple Hearts and other decorations -- none of which was told to the trial court as mitigating evidence during sentencing. The trial lawyer's failure to introduce the evidence "did not reflect reasonable professional judgment" and could well have affected the outcome of the case, the Court said.
In language that is sure to be cited in future cases involving veterans, the Court said that the fact that Porter went AWOL in Korea did not detract from the significance of his combat experience as mitigating evidence.
"Post-combat stress as a defense," is the title of Lyle Denniston's SCOTUS Blog post.
The Supreme Court, in a sign of the times for a nation at war on two fronts, on Monday put defense lawyers on notice that they should be prepared to use evidence of “post-traumatic stress disorder” to try to save accused veterans from the death penalty. Ruling without full briefing or a hearing, and with no dissent noted, the Court apparently overturned the death sentence of a Florida veteran whose “combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man,” as the Court put it in Porter v. McCollum (08-10537), involving Korean war veteran George Porter, Jr. The unsigned opinion can be found here.
“Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did,” the opinion said. “The relevance of Porter’s extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.”
Because the case turned mainly on the specific facts of the prosecution and defense of Porter for murdering his former girlfriend and her boyfriend, it is not clear that the ruling will have a direct impact on other criminal cases in which combat stress might be a key factor. However, parts of the Court’s opinion read as if the Justices did intend to speak more broadly.
It noted that post-traumatic stress disorder “is not uncommon among veterans returning from combat,” and cited testimony before Congress this year by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki that “approximately 23 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at a VA medical facility had been preliminarily diagnoses with PTSD.” It also noted that, in Porter’s case specifically, a medical expert testified that his symptoms “would ‘easily’ warrant a diagnosis” of PTSD.
Adam Liptak writes, "Justices Say War Trauma Must be Weighed in Capital Cases," in the New York Times.
A death penalty lawyer’s failure to present evidence of the trauma his client suffered in combat in the Korean War requires a new sentencing hearing, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday.
The decision makes clear that lawyers for clients facing the death penalty must present evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from military service if it is available.
The unsigned 15-page decision displayed unusual solicitude for a death-row inmate, noting that “our nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines.”
The defendant, George Porter Jr., was convicted in 1987 of murdering his former girlfriend, Evelyn Williams, and her boyfriend, Walter Burrows, in Melbourne, Fla., the previous year. Mr. Porter represented himself for part of his trial and then decided to plead guilty.
He turned to a court-appointed lawyer, Sam Bardwell, to represent him in the sentencing hearing. Mr. Bardwell, who had never represented a defendant in a capital sentencing proceeding, did not interview any of his client’s relatives and did not obtain any school, medical or military service records. He presented only one witness, Mr. Porter’s ex-wife.
Mr. Bardwell’s investigation, Monday’s decision said, was not “even cursory.” Mr. Bardwell has explained that his client had been fatalistic and uncooperative. He did not respond to a message seeking comment on Monday.
Mr. Bardwell’s conduct “did not reflect reasonable professional judgment,” the decision said. “Had Porter’s counsel been effective, the judge and jury would have learned,” among other things, “about Porter’s heroic military service in two of the most critical — and horrific — battles of the Korean War.”
Today's Chicago Tribune carries, "Supreme Court cites combat stress in reversing death penalty," by David Savage.
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a death sentence for a decorated veteran who fought on the front lines of the Korean War, ruling for the first time that combat stress must be considered by a jury before it hands down the harshest punishment.
"Our nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as [George] Porter did," the justices said in a unanimous, unsigned opinion.
Porter, 76, was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1986 shooting and killing his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend during a drunken rage in Melbourne, Fla. But his jury was never told, and his appointed lawyer did not know, of his valiant military service more than three decades earlier.
In the past, the high court has set aside just a few death sentences because a defense lawyer failed to tell jurors of crucial "mitigating evidence" that would likely have persuaded them to spare his life.
Monday's decision appears to be the first in which the court cited "post-traumatic stress disorder" from military combat as the kind of crucial evidence that calls for leniency. It comes as thousands of U.S. soldiers are being treated for the disorder from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both the Florida Supreme Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld Porter's death sentence, despite his overlooked military record, but the high court said those decisions were mistaken.
"George Porter is a veteran who was both wounded and decorated for his active participation in two major engagements during the Korean War. His combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man," the justices said.
The court's opinion put defense lawyers in capital cases on notice that they have a duty to look into their client's background and to tell jurors about any mitigating evidence that would call for leniency.
In Porter's case, his appointed lawyer testified later that he had only one short meeting with his client before the trial and that he did not meet with Porter's family and was unaware of his military record.
Tony Mauro writes, "Supreme Court Sides With Florida Inmate on Ineffective Assistance," for the BLT.
Returning from its Thanksgiving break, the Supreme Court today issued a powerful unsigned "per curiam" opinion agreeing that the ineffective assistance of counsel for Florida death row inmate George Porter Jr. prejudiced the sentence he received after his murder trial in 1988. He was convicted in the murder of a former girlfriend and her boyfriend. The Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit previously rejected his ineffective assistance claim.
Ruling in Porter v. McCollum, available here, the Court extensively detailed Porter's "horrible family life" and his trying Korean War experiences that earned him two Purple Hearts and other decorations -- none of which was told to the trial court as mitigating evidence during sentencing. The trial lawyer's failure to introduce the evidence "did not reflect reasonable professional judgment" and could well have affected the outcome of the case, the Court said.
In language that is sure to be cited in future cases involving veterans, the Court said that the fact that Porter went AWOL in Korea did not detract from the significance of his combat experience as mitigating evidence.
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Porter v. McCollum
GEORGE PORTER, Jr. v. BILL McCOLLUM,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the united
states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 08-10537. Decided November 30, 2009
Per Curiam.
Petitioner George Porter is a veteran who was both wounded and decorated for his active participation in two major engagements during the Korean War; his combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man. His commanding officer's moving description of those two battles was only a fraction of the mitigating evidence that his counsel failed to discover or present during the penalty phase of his trial in 1988.
In this federal postconviction proceeding, the District Court held that Porter's lawyer's failure to adduce that evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and granted his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, on the ground that the Florida Supreme Court's determination that Porter was not prejudiced by any deficient performance by his counsel was a reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Like the District Court, we are persuaded that it was objectively unreasonable to conclude there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that Porter's counsel neither uncovered nor presented. We therefore grant the petition for certiorari in part and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.1
I
Porter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting of his former girlfriend, Evelyn Williams, and her boyfriend Walter Burrows. He was sentenced to death on the first count but not the second.
In July 1986, as his relationship with Williams was ending, Porter threatened to kill her and then left town. When he returned to Florida three months later, he attempted to see Williams but her mother told him that Williams did not want to see him. He drove past Williams' house each of the two days prior to the shooting, and the night before the murder he visited Williams, who called the police. Porter then went to two cocktail lounges and spent the night with a friend, who testified Porter was quite drunk by 11 p.m. Early the next morning, Porter shot Williams in her house. Burrows struggled with Porter and forced him outside where Porter shot him.
Porter represented himself, with standby counsel, for most of the pretrial proceedings and during the beginning of his trial. Near the completion of the State's case in chief, Porter pleaded guilty. He thereafter changed his mind about representing himself, and his standby counsel was appointed as his counsel for the penalty phase. During the penalty phase, the State attempted to prove four aggravating factors: Porter had been "previously convicted" of another violent felony (i.e., in Williams' case, killing Burrows, and in his case, killing Williams);2 the murder was committed during a burglary; the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner; and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The defense put on only one witness, Porter's ex-wife, and read an excerpt from a deposition. The sum total of the mitigating evidence was inconsistent testimony about Porter's behavior when intoxicated and testimony that Porter had a good relationship with his son. Although his lawyer told the jury that Porter "has other handicaps that weren't apparent during the trial" and Porter was not "mentally healthy," he did not put on any evidence related to Porter's mental health. 3 Tr. 477-478 (Jan. 22, 1988).
The jury recommended the death sentence for both murders. The trial court found that the State had proved all four aggravating circumstances for the murder of Williams but that only the first two were established with respect to Burrows' murder. The trial court found no mitigating circumstances and imposed a death sentence for Williams' murder only. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the sentence over the dissent of two justices, but struck the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor. Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060 (1990) (per curiam). The court found the State had not carried its burden on that factor because the "record is consistent with the hypothesis that Porter's was a crime of passion, not a crime that was meant to be deliberately and extraordinarily painful." Id., at 1063 (emphasis deleted). The two dissenting justices would have reversed the penalty because the evidence of drunkenness, "combined with evidence of Porter's emotionally charged, desperate, frustrated desire to meet with his former lover, is sufficient to render the death penalty disproportional punishment in this instance." Id., at 1065-1066 (Barkett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In 1995, Porter filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court, claiming his penalty-phase counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. The court conducted a 2-day evidentiary hearing, during which Porter presented extensive mitigating evidence, all of which was apparently unknown to his penalty-phase counsel. Unlike the evidence presented during Porter's penalty hearing, which left the jury knowing hardly anything about him other than the facts of his crimes, the new evidence described his abusive childhood, his heroic military service and the trauma he suffered because of it, his long-term substance abuse, and his impaired mental health and mental capacity.
The depositions of his brother and sister described the abuse Porter suffered as a child. Porter routinely witnessed his father beat his mother, one time so severely that she had to go to the hospital and lost a child. Porter's father was violent every weekend, and by his siblings' account, Porter was his father's favorite target, particularly when Porter tried to protect his mother. On one occasion, Porter's father shot at him for coming home late, but missed and just beat Porter instead. According to his brother, Porter attended classes for slow learners and left school when he was 12 or 13.
To escape his horrible family life, Porter enlisted in the Army at age 17 and fought in the Korean War. His company commander, Lieutenant Colonel Sherman Pratt, testified at Porter's postconviction hearing. Porter was with the 2d Division, which had advanced above the 38th parallel to Kunu-ri when it was attacked by Chinese forces. Porter suffered a gunshot wound to the leg during the advance but was with the unit for the battle at Kunu-ri. While the Eighth Army was withdrawing, the 2d Division was ordered to hold off the Chinese advance, enabling the bulk of the Eighth Army to live to fight another day. As Colonel Pratt described it, the unit "went into position there in bitter cold night, terribly worn out, terribly weary, almost like zombies because we had been in constant--for five days we had been in constant contact with the enemy fighting our way to the rear, little or no sleep, little or no food, literally as I say zombies." 1 Tr. 138 (Jan. 4, 1996). The next morning, the unit engaged in a "fierce hand-to-hand fight with the Chinese" and later that day received permission to withdraw, making Porter's regiment the last unit of the Eighth Army to withdraw. Id., at 139-140.
Less than three months later, Porter fought in a second battle, at Chip'yong-ni. His regiment was cut off from the rest of the Eighth Army and defended itself for two days and two nights under constant fire. After the enemy broke through the perimeter and overtook defensive positions on high ground, Porter's company was charged with retaking those positions. In the charge up the hill, the soldiers "were under direct open fire of the enemy forces on top of the hill. They immediately came under mortar, artillery, machine gun, and every other kind of fire you can imagine and they were just dropping like flies as they went along." Id., at 150. Porter's company lost all three of its platoon sergeants, and almost all of the officers were wounded. Porter was again wounded and his company sustained the heaviest losses of any troops in the battle, with more than 50% casualties. Colonel Pratt testified that these battles were "very trying, horrifying experiences," particularly for Porter's company at Chip'yong-ni. Id., at 152. Porter's unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for the engagement at Chip'yong-ni, and Porter individually received two Purple Hearts and the Combat Infantryman Badge, along with other decorations.
Colonel Pratt testified that Porter went absent without leave (AWOL) for two periods while in Korea. He explained that this was not uncommon, as soldiers sometimes became disoriented and separated from the unit, and that the commander had decided not to impose any punishment for the absences. In Colonel Pratt's experience, an "awful lot of [veterans] come back nervous wrecks. Our [veterans'] hospitals today are filled with people mentally trying to survive the perils and hardships [of] ... the Korean War," particularly those who fought in the battles he described. Id., at 153.
When Porter returned to the United States, he went AWOL for an extended period of time.3 He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for that infraction, but he received an honorable discharge. After his discharge, he suffered dreadful nightmares and would attempt to climb his bedroom walls with knives at night.4 Porter's family eventually removed all of the knives from the house. According to Porter's brother, Porter developed a serious drinking problem and began drinking so heavily that he would get into fights and not remember them at all.
In addition to this testimony regarding his life history, Porter presented an expert in neuropsychology, Dr. Dee, who had examined Porter and administered a number of psychological assessments. Dr. Dee concluded that Porter suffered from brain damage that could manifest in impulsive, violent behavior. At the time of the crime, Dr. Dee testified, Porter was substantially impaired in his ability to conform his conduct to the law and suffered from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance, two statutory mitigating circumstances, Fla. Stat. §921.141(6). Dr. Dee also testified that Porter had substantial difficulties with reading, writing, and memory, and that these cognitive defects were present when he was evaluated for competency to stand trial. 2 Tr. 227-228 (Jan. 5, 1996); see also Record 904-906. Although the State's experts reached different conclusions regarding the statutory mitigators,5 each expert testified that he could not diagnose Porter or rule out a brain abnormality. 2 Tr. 345, 382 (Jan. 5, 1996); 3 id., at 405.
The trial judge who conducted the state postconviction hearing, without determining counsel's deficiency, held that Porter had not been prejudiced by the failure to introduce any of that evidence. Record 1203, 1206. He found that Porter had failed to establish any statutory mitigating circumstances, id., at 1207, and that the nonstatutory mitigating evidence would not have made a difference in the outcome of the case, id., at 1210. He discounted the evidence of Porter's alcohol abuse because it was inconsistent and discounted the evidence of Porter's abusive childhood because he was 54 years old at the time of the trial. He also concluded that Porter's periods of being AWOL would have reduced the impact of Porter's military service to "inconsequential proportions." Id., at 1212. Finally, he held that even considering all three categories of evidence together, the "trial judge and jury still would have imposed death." Id., at 1214.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. It first accepted the trial court's finding that Porter could not have established any statutory mitigating circumstances, based on the trial court's acceptance of the State's experts' conclusions in that regard. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (2001) (per curiam). It then held the trial court was correct to find "the additional nonstatutory mitigation to be lacking in weight because of the specific facts presented." Id., at 925. Like the postconviction court, the Florida Supreme Court reserved judgment regarding counsel's deficiency. Ibid.6 Two justices dissented, reasoning that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence was "especially harmful" because of the divided vote affirming the sentence on direct appeal--"even without the substantial mitigation that we now know existed"--and because of the reversal of the heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravating factor. Id., at 937 (Anstead, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Porter thereafter filed his federal habeas petition. The District Court held Porter's penalty-phase counsel had been ineffective. It first determined that counsel's performance had been deficient because "penalty-phase counsel did little, if any investigation ... and failed to effectively advocate on behalf of his client before the jury." Porter v. Crosby, No. 6:03-cv-1465-Orl-31KRS, 2007 WL 1747316, *23 (MD Fla., June 18, 2007). It then determined that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial, finding that the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established law in part because the state court failed to consider the entirety of the evidence when reweighing the evidence in mitigation, including the trial evidence suggesting that "this was a crime of passion, that [Porter] was drinking heavily just hours before the murders, or that [Porter] had a good relationship with his son." Id., at *30.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed. It held the District Court had failed to appropriately defer to the state court's factual findings with respect to Porter's alcohol abuse and his mental health. 552 F. 3d 1260, 1274, 1275 (2008) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals then separately considered each category of mitigating evidence and held it was not unreasonable for the state court to discount each category as it did. Id., at 1274. Porter petitioned for a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition and reverse with respect to the Court of Appeals' disposition of Porter's ineffective- assistance claim.
II
To prevail under Strickland, Porter must show that his counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. To establish deficiency, Porter must show his "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." 466 U. S., at 688. To establish prejudice, he "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 694. Finally, Porter is entitled to relief only if the state court's rejection of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of" Strickland, or it rested "on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U. S. C. §2254(d).
Because the state court did not decide whether Porter's counsel was deficient, we review this element of Porter's Strickland claim de novo. Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374, 390 (2005). It is unquestioned that under the prevailing professional norms at the time of Porter's trial, counsel had an "obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 396 (2000). The investigation conducted by Porter's counsel clearly did not satisfy those norms.
Although Porter had initially elected to represent himself, his standby counsel became his counsel for the penalty phase a little over a month prior to the sentencing proceeding before the jury. It was the first time this lawyer had represented a defendant during a penalty-phase proceeding. At the postconviction hearing, he testified that he had only one short meeting with Porter regarding the penalty phase. He did not obtain any of Porter's school, medical, or military service records or interview any members of Porter's family. In Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 524, 525 (2003), we held counsel "fell short of ... professional standards" for not expanding their investigation beyond the presentence investigation report and one set of records they obtained, particularly "in light of what counsel actually discovered" in the records. Here, counsel did not even take the first step of interviewing witnesses or requesting records. Cf. Bobby v. Van Hook, ante, at 6-8 (holding performance not deficient when counsel gathered a substantial amount of information and then made a reasonable decision not to pursue additional sources); Strickland, 466 U. S., at 699 ("[Counsel's] decision not to seek more character or psychological evidence than was already in hand was ... reasonable"). Beyond that, like the counsel in Wiggins, he ignored pertinent avenues for investigation of which he should have been aware. The court-ordered competency evaluations, for example, collectively reported Porter's very few years of regular school, his military service and wounds sustained in combat, and his father's "over-disciplin[e]." Record 902-906. As an explanation, counsel described Porter as fatalistic and uncooperative. But he acknowledged that although Porter instructed him not to speak with Porter's ex-wife or son, Porter did not give him any other instructions limiting the witnesses he could interview.
Counsel thus failed to uncover and present any evidence of Porter's mental health or mental impairment, his family background, or his military service. The decision not to investigate did not reflect reasonable professional judgment. Wiggins, supra, at 534. Porter may have been fatalistic or uncooperative, but that does not obviate the need for defense counsel to conduct some sort of mitigation investigation. See Rompilla, supra, at 381-382.
III
Because we find Porter's counsel deficient, we must determine whether the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland in holding Porter was not prejudiced by that deficiency. Under Strickland, a defendant is prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance if "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 466 U. S., at 694. In Florida, the sentencing judge makes the determination as to the existence and weight of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the punishment, Fla. Stat. §921.141(3), but he must give the jury verdict of life or death "great weight," Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975) (per curiam). Porter must show that but for his counsel's deficiency, there is a reasonable probability he would have received a different sentence. To assess that probability, we consider "the totality of the available mitigation evidence--both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding"--and "reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation." Williams, supra, at 397-398.
This is not a case in which the new evidence "would barely have altered the sentencing profile presented to the sentencing judge." Strickland, supra, at 700. The judge and jury at Porter's original sentencing heard almost nothing that would humanize Porter or allow them to accurately gauge his moral culpability. They learned about Porter's turbulent relationship with Williams, his crimes, and almost nothing else. Had Porter's counsel been effective, the judge and jury would have learned of the "kind of troubled history we have declared relevant to assessing a defendant's moral culpability." Wiggins, supra, at 535. They would have heard about (1) Porter's heroic military service in two of the most critical--and horrific--battles of the Korean War, (2) his struggles to regain normality upon his return from war, (3) his childhood history of physical abuse, and (4) his brain abnormality, difficulty reading and writing, and limited schooling. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 219 (1989) (" '[E]vidence about the defendant's background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background ... may be less culpable' "). Instead, they heard absolutely none of that evidence, evidence which "might well have influenced the jury's appraisal of [Porter's] moral culpability." Williams, 529 U. S., at 398.
On the other side of the ledger, the weight of evidence in aggravation is not as substantial as the sentencing judge thought. As noted, the sentencing judge accepted the jury's recommendation of a death sentence for the murder of Williams but rejected the jury's death-sentence recommendation for the murder of Burrows. The sentencing judge believed that there were four aggravating circumstances related to the Williams murder but only two for the Burrows murder. Accordingly, the judge must have reasoned that the two aggravating circumstances that were present in both cases were insufficient to warrant a death sentence but that the two additional aggravating circumstances present with respect to the Williams murder were sufficient to tip the balance in favor of a death sentence. But the Florida Supreme Court rejected one of these additional aggravating circumstances, i.e., that Williams' murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, finding the murder "consistent with ... a crime of passion" even though premeditated to a heightened degree. 564 So. 2d, at 1063-1064. Had the judge and jury been able to place Porter's life history "on the mitigating side of the scale," and appropriately reduced the ballast on the aggravating side of the scale, there is clearly a reasonable probability that the advisory jury--and the sentencing judge--"would have struck a different balance," Wiggins, 539 U. S., at 537, and it is unreasonable to conclude otherwise.
The Florida Supreme Court's decision that Porter was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to conduct a thorough--or even cursory--investigation is unreasonable. The Florida Supreme Court either did not consider or unreasonably discounted the mitigation evidence adduced in the postconviction hearing. Under Florida law, mental health evidence that does not rise to the level of establishing a statutory mitigating circumstance may nonetheless be considered by the sentencing judge and jury as mitigating. See, e.g., Hoskins v. State, 965 So. 2d 1, 17-18 (Fla. 2007) (per curiam). Indeed, the Constitution requires that "the sentencer in capital cases must be permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor." Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 112 (1982). Yet neither the postconviction trial court nor the Florida Supreme Court gave any consideration for the purpose of nonstatutory mitigation to Dr. Dee's testimony regarding the existence of a brain abnormality and cognitive defects.7 While the State's experts identified perceived problems with the tests that Dr. Dee used and the conclusions that he drew from them, it was not reasonable to discount entirely the effect that his testimony might have had on the jury or the sentencing judge.
Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court, following the state postconviction court, unreasonably discounted the evidence of Porter's childhood abuse and military service. It is unreasonable to discount to irrelevance the evidence of Porter's abusive childhood, especially when that kind of history may have particular salience for a jury evaluating Porter's behavior in his relationship with Williams. It is also unreasonable to conclude that Porter's military service would be reduced to "inconsequential proportions," 788 So. 2d, at 925, simply because the jury would also have learned that Porter went AWOL on more than one occasion. Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did.8 Moreover, the relevance of Porter's extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.9 The evidence that he was AWOL is consistent with this theory of mitigation and does not impeach or diminish the evidence of his service. To conclude otherwise reflects a failure to engage with what Porter actually went through in Korea.
As the two dissenting justices in the Florida Supreme Court reasoned, "there exists too much mitigating evidence that was not presented to now be ignored." Id., at 937 (Anstead, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Although the burden is on petitioner to show he was prejudiced by his counsel's deficiency, the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that Porter failed to meet this burden was an unreasonable application of our clearly established law. We do not require a defendant to show "that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome" of his penalty proceeding, but rather that he establish "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] outcome." Strickland, 466 U. S., at 693-694. This Porter has done.
The petition for certiorari is granted in part, and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote 1
We deny the petition insofar as it challenges his conviction.
Footnote 2
It is an aggravating factor under Florida law that "[t]he defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person." Fla. Stat. §921.141(5)(b) (1987). In Porter's case, the State established that factor by reference to Porter's contemporaneous convictions stemming from the same episode: two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault. Tr. 5 (Mar. 4, 1988).
Footnote 3
Porter explained to one of the doctors who examined him for competency to stand trial that he went AWOL in order to spend time with his son. Record 904.
Footnote 4
Porter's expert testified that these symptoms would "easily" warrant a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2 Tr. 233 (Jan. 5, 1996). PTSD is not uncommon among veterans returning from combat. See Hearing on Fiscal Year 2010 Budget for Veterans' Programs before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., 63 (2009) (uncorrected copy) (testimony of Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), reporting that approximately 23 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at a VA medical facility had been preliminarily diagnosed with PTSD).
Footnote 5
The State presented two experts, Dr. Riebsame and Dr. Kirkland. Neither of the State's experts had examined Porter, but each testified that based upon their review of the record, Porter met neither statutory mitigating circumstance.
Footnote 6
The postconviction court stated defense counsel "was not ineffective for failing to pursue mental health evaluations and ... [Porter] has thus failed to show sufficient evidence that any statutory mitigators could have been presented." Record 1210. It is not at all clear whether this stray comment addressed counsel's deficiency. If it did, then it was at most dicta, because the court expressly "decline[d] to make a determination regarding whether or not Defense Counsel was in fact deficient here." Id., at 1206. The Florida Supreme Court simply paraphrased the postconviction court when it stated "trial counsel's decision not to pursue mental evaluations did not exceed the bounds for competent counsel." Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923-924 (2001) (per curiam). But that court also expressly declined to answer the question of deficiency. Id., at 925.
Footnote 7
The Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that Porter had presented evidence of "statutory and nonstatutory mental mitigation," 788 So. 2d, at 921, but it did not consider Porter's mental health evidence in its discussion of nonstatutory mitigating evidence, id., at 924.
Footnote 8
See Abbott, The Civil War and the Crime Wave of 1865-70, 1 Soc. Serv. Rev. 212, 232-234 (1927) (discussing the movement to pardon or parole prisoners who were veterans of the Civil War); Rosenbaum, The Relationship Between War and Crime in the United States, 30 J. Crim. L. & C. 722, 733-734 (1940) (describing a 1922 study by the Wisconsin Board of Control that discussed the number of veterans imprisoned in the State and considered "the greater leniency that may be shown to ex-service men in court").
Footnote 9
Cf. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1170.9(a) (West Supp. 2009) (providing a special hearing for a person convicted of a crime "who alleges that he or she committed the offense as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or psychological problems stemming from service in a combat theater in the United States military"); Minn. Stat. §609.115, Subd. 10 (2008) (providing for a special process at sentencing if the defendant is a veteran and has been diagnosed as having a mental illness by a qualified psychiatrist).
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the united
states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 08-10537. Decided November 30, 2009
Per Curiam.
Petitioner George Porter is a veteran who was both wounded and decorated for his active participation in two major engagements during the Korean War; his combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man. His commanding officer's moving description of those two battles was only a fraction of the mitigating evidence that his counsel failed to discover or present during the penalty phase of his trial in 1988.
In this federal postconviction proceeding, the District Court held that Porter's lawyer's failure to adduce that evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and granted his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, on the ground that the Florida Supreme Court's determination that Porter was not prejudiced by any deficient performance by his counsel was a reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Like the District Court, we are persuaded that it was objectively unreasonable to conclude there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that Porter's counsel neither uncovered nor presented. We therefore grant the petition for certiorari in part and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.1
I
Porter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting of his former girlfriend, Evelyn Williams, and her boyfriend Walter Burrows. He was sentenced to death on the first count but not the second.
In July 1986, as his relationship with Williams was ending, Porter threatened to kill her and then left town. When he returned to Florida three months later, he attempted to see Williams but her mother told him that Williams did not want to see him. He drove past Williams' house each of the two days prior to the shooting, and the night before the murder he visited Williams, who called the police. Porter then went to two cocktail lounges and spent the night with a friend, who testified Porter was quite drunk by 11 p.m. Early the next morning, Porter shot Williams in her house. Burrows struggled with Porter and forced him outside where Porter shot him.
Porter represented himself, with standby counsel, for most of the pretrial proceedings and during the beginning of his trial. Near the completion of the State's case in chief, Porter pleaded guilty. He thereafter changed his mind about representing himself, and his standby counsel was appointed as his counsel for the penalty phase. During the penalty phase, the State attempted to prove four aggravating factors: Porter had been "previously convicted" of another violent felony (i.e., in Williams' case, killing Burrows, and in his case, killing Williams);2 the murder was committed during a burglary; the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner; and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The defense put on only one witness, Porter's ex-wife, and read an excerpt from a deposition. The sum total of the mitigating evidence was inconsistent testimony about Porter's behavior when intoxicated and testimony that Porter had a good relationship with his son. Although his lawyer told the jury that Porter "has other handicaps that weren't apparent during the trial" and Porter was not "mentally healthy," he did not put on any evidence related to Porter's mental health. 3 Tr. 477-478 (Jan. 22, 1988).
The jury recommended the death sentence for both murders. The trial court found that the State had proved all four aggravating circumstances for the murder of Williams but that only the first two were established with respect to Burrows' murder. The trial court found no mitigating circumstances and imposed a death sentence for Williams' murder only. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the sentence over the dissent of two justices, but struck the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor. Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060 (1990) (per curiam). The court found the State had not carried its burden on that factor because the "record is consistent with the hypothesis that Porter's was a crime of passion, not a crime that was meant to be deliberately and extraordinarily painful." Id., at 1063 (emphasis deleted). The two dissenting justices would have reversed the penalty because the evidence of drunkenness, "combined with evidence of Porter's emotionally charged, desperate, frustrated desire to meet with his former lover, is sufficient to render the death penalty disproportional punishment in this instance." Id., at 1065-1066 (Barkett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In 1995, Porter filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court, claiming his penalty-phase counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. The court conducted a 2-day evidentiary hearing, during which Porter presented extensive mitigating evidence, all of which was apparently unknown to his penalty-phase counsel. Unlike the evidence presented during Porter's penalty hearing, which left the jury knowing hardly anything about him other than the facts of his crimes, the new evidence described his abusive childhood, his heroic military service and the trauma he suffered because of it, his long-term substance abuse, and his impaired mental health and mental capacity.
The depositions of his brother and sister described the abuse Porter suffered as a child. Porter routinely witnessed his father beat his mother, one time so severely that she had to go to the hospital and lost a child. Porter's father was violent every weekend, and by his siblings' account, Porter was his father's favorite target, particularly when Porter tried to protect his mother. On one occasion, Porter's father shot at him for coming home late, but missed and just beat Porter instead. According to his brother, Porter attended classes for slow learners and left school when he was 12 or 13.
To escape his horrible family life, Porter enlisted in the Army at age 17 and fought in the Korean War. His company commander, Lieutenant Colonel Sherman Pratt, testified at Porter's postconviction hearing. Porter was with the 2d Division, which had advanced above the 38th parallel to Kunu-ri when it was attacked by Chinese forces. Porter suffered a gunshot wound to the leg during the advance but was with the unit for the battle at Kunu-ri. While the Eighth Army was withdrawing, the 2d Division was ordered to hold off the Chinese advance, enabling the bulk of the Eighth Army to live to fight another day. As Colonel Pratt described it, the unit "went into position there in bitter cold night, terribly worn out, terribly weary, almost like zombies because we had been in constant--for five days we had been in constant contact with the enemy fighting our way to the rear, little or no sleep, little or no food, literally as I say zombies." 1 Tr. 138 (Jan. 4, 1996). The next morning, the unit engaged in a "fierce hand-to-hand fight with the Chinese" and later that day received permission to withdraw, making Porter's regiment the last unit of the Eighth Army to withdraw. Id., at 139-140.
Less than three months later, Porter fought in a second battle, at Chip'yong-ni. His regiment was cut off from the rest of the Eighth Army and defended itself for two days and two nights under constant fire. After the enemy broke through the perimeter and overtook defensive positions on high ground, Porter's company was charged with retaking those positions. In the charge up the hill, the soldiers "were under direct open fire of the enemy forces on top of the hill. They immediately came under mortar, artillery, machine gun, and every other kind of fire you can imagine and they were just dropping like flies as they went along." Id., at 150. Porter's company lost all three of its platoon sergeants, and almost all of the officers were wounded. Porter was again wounded and his company sustained the heaviest losses of any troops in the battle, with more than 50% casualties. Colonel Pratt testified that these battles were "very trying, horrifying experiences," particularly for Porter's company at Chip'yong-ni. Id., at 152. Porter's unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for the engagement at Chip'yong-ni, and Porter individually received two Purple Hearts and the Combat Infantryman Badge, along with other decorations.
Colonel Pratt testified that Porter went absent without leave (AWOL) for two periods while in Korea. He explained that this was not uncommon, as soldiers sometimes became disoriented and separated from the unit, and that the commander had decided not to impose any punishment for the absences. In Colonel Pratt's experience, an "awful lot of [veterans] come back nervous wrecks. Our [veterans'] hospitals today are filled with people mentally trying to survive the perils and hardships [of] ... the Korean War," particularly those who fought in the battles he described. Id., at 153.
When Porter returned to the United States, he went AWOL for an extended period of time.3 He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for that infraction, but he received an honorable discharge. After his discharge, he suffered dreadful nightmares and would attempt to climb his bedroom walls with knives at night.4 Porter's family eventually removed all of the knives from the house. According to Porter's brother, Porter developed a serious drinking problem and began drinking so heavily that he would get into fights and not remember them at all.
In addition to this testimony regarding his life history, Porter presented an expert in neuropsychology, Dr. Dee, who had examined Porter and administered a number of psychological assessments. Dr. Dee concluded that Porter suffered from brain damage that could manifest in impulsive, violent behavior. At the time of the crime, Dr. Dee testified, Porter was substantially impaired in his ability to conform his conduct to the law and suffered from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance, two statutory mitigating circumstances, Fla. Stat. §921.141(6). Dr. Dee also testified that Porter had substantial difficulties with reading, writing, and memory, and that these cognitive defects were present when he was evaluated for competency to stand trial. 2 Tr. 227-228 (Jan. 5, 1996); see also Record 904-906. Although the State's experts reached different conclusions regarding the statutory mitigators,5 each expert testified that he could not diagnose Porter or rule out a brain abnormality. 2 Tr. 345, 382 (Jan. 5, 1996); 3 id., at 405.
The trial judge who conducted the state postconviction hearing, without determining counsel's deficiency, held that Porter had not been prejudiced by the failure to introduce any of that evidence. Record 1203, 1206. He found that Porter had failed to establish any statutory mitigating circumstances, id., at 1207, and that the nonstatutory mitigating evidence would not have made a difference in the outcome of the case, id., at 1210. He discounted the evidence of Porter's alcohol abuse because it was inconsistent and discounted the evidence of Porter's abusive childhood because he was 54 years old at the time of the trial. He also concluded that Porter's periods of being AWOL would have reduced the impact of Porter's military service to "inconsequential proportions." Id., at 1212. Finally, he held that even considering all three categories of evidence together, the "trial judge and jury still would have imposed death." Id., at 1214.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. It first accepted the trial court's finding that Porter could not have established any statutory mitigating circumstances, based on the trial court's acceptance of the State's experts' conclusions in that regard. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (2001) (per curiam). It then held the trial court was correct to find "the additional nonstatutory mitigation to be lacking in weight because of the specific facts presented." Id., at 925. Like the postconviction court, the Florida Supreme Court reserved judgment regarding counsel's deficiency. Ibid.6 Two justices dissented, reasoning that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence was "especially harmful" because of the divided vote affirming the sentence on direct appeal--"even without the substantial mitigation that we now know existed"--and because of the reversal of the heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravating factor. Id., at 937 (Anstead, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Porter thereafter filed his federal habeas petition. The District Court held Porter's penalty-phase counsel had been ineffective. It first determined that counsel's performance had been deficient because "penalty-phase counsel did little, if any investigation ... and failed to effectively advocate on behalf of his client before the jury." Porter v. Crosby, No. 6:03-cv-1465-Orl-31KRS, 2007 WL 1747316, *23 (MD Fla., June 18, 2007). It then determined that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial, finding that the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established law in part because the state court failed to consider the entirety of the evidence when reweighing the evidence in mitigation, including the trial evidence suggesting that "this was a crime of passion, that [Porter] was drinking heavily just hours before the murders, or that [Porter] had a good relationship with his son." Id., at *30.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed. It held the District Court had failed to appropriately defer to the state court's factual findings with respect to Porter's alcohol abuse and his mental health. 552 F. 3d 1260, 1274, 1275 (2008) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals then separately considered each category of mitigating evidence and held it was not unreasonable for the state court to discount each category as it did. Id., at 1274. Porter petitioned for a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition and reverse with respect to the Court of Appeals' disposition of Porter's ineffective- assistance claim.
II
To prevail under Strickland, Porter must show that his counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. To establish deficiency, Porter must show his "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." 466 U. S., at 688. To establish prejudice, he "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 694. Finally, Porter is entitled to relief only if the state court's rejection of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of" Strickland, or it rested "on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U. S. C. §2254(d).
Because the state court did not decide whether Porter's counsel was deficient, we review this element of Porter's Strickland claim de novo. Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374, 390 (2005). It is unquestioned that under the prevailing professional norms at the time of Porter's trial, counsel had an "obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 396 (2000). The investigation conducted by Porter's counsel clearly did not satisfy those norms.
Although Porter had initially elected to represent himself, his standby counsel became his counsel for the penalty phase a little over a month prior to the sentencing proceeding before the jury. It was the first time this lawyer had represented a defendant during a penalty-phase proceeding. At the postconviction hearing, he testified that he had only one short meeting with Porter regarding the penalty phase. He did not obtain any of Porter's school, medical, or military service records or interview any members of Porter's family. In Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 524, 525 (2003), we held counsel "fell short of ... professional standards" for not expanding their investigation beyond the presentence investigation report and one set of records they obtained, particularly "in light of what counsel actually discovered" in the records. Here, counsel did not even take the first step of interviewing witnesses or requesting records. Cf. Bobby v. Van Hook, ante, at 6-8 (holding performance not deficient when counsel gathered a substantial amount of information and then made a reasonable decision not to pursue additional sources); Strickland, 466 U. S., at 699 ("[Counsel's] decision not to seek more character or psychological evidence than was already in hand was ... reasonable"). Beyond that, like the counsel in Wiggins, he ignored pertinent avenues for investigation of which he should have been aware. The court-ordered competency evaluations, for example, collectively reported Porter's very few years of regular school, his military service and wounds sustained in combat, and his father's "over-disciplin[e]." Record 902-906. As an explanation, counsel described Porter as fatalistic and uncooperative. But he acknowledged that although Porter instructed him not to speak with Porter's ex-wife or son, Porter did not give him any other instructions limiting the witnesses he could interview.
Counsel thus failed to uncover and present any evidence of Porter's mental health or mental impairment, his family background, or his military service. The decision not to investigate did not reflect reasonable professional judgment. Wiggins, supra, at 534. Porter may have been fatalistic or uncooperative, but that does not obviate the need for defense counsel to conduct some sort of mitigation investigation. See Rompilla, supra, at 381-382.
III
Because we find Porter's counsel deficient, we must determine whether the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland in holding Porter was not prejudiced by that deficiency. Under Strickland, a defendant is prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance if "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 466 U. S., at 694. In Florida, the sentencing judge makes the determination as to the existence and weight of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the punishment, Fla. Stat. §921.141(3), but he must give the jury verdict of life or death "great weight," Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975) (per curiam). Porter must show that but for his counsel's deficiency, there is a reasonable probability he would have received a different sentence. To assess that probability, we consider "the totality of the available mitigation evidence--both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding"--and "reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation." Williams, supra, at 397-398.
This is not a case in which the new evidence "would barely have altered the sentencing profile presented to the sentencing judge." Strickland, supra, at 700. The judge and jury at Porter's original sentencing heard almost nothing that would humanize Porter or allow them to accurately gauge his moral culpability. They learned about Porter's turbulent relationship with Williams, his crimes, and almost nothing else. Had Porter's counsel been effective, the judge and jury would have learned of the "kind of troubled history we have declared relevant to assessing a defendant's moral culpability." Wiggins, supra, at 535. They would have heard about (1) Porter's heroic military service in two of the most critical--and horrific--battles of the Korean War, (2) his struggles to regain normality upon his return from war, (3) his childhood history of physical abuse, and (4) his brain abnormality, difficulty reading and writing, and limited schooling. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 219 (1989) (" '[E]vidence about the defendant's background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background ... may be less culpable' "). Instead, they heard absolutely none of that evidence, evidence which "might well have influenced the jury's appraisal of [Porter's] moral culpability." Williams, 529 U. S., at 398.
On the other side of the ledger, the weight of evidence in aggravation is not as substantial as the sentencing judge thought. As noted, the sentencing judge accepted the jury's recommendation of a death sentence for the murder of Williams but rejected the jury's death-sentence recommendation for the murder of Burrows. The sentencing judge believed that there were four aggravating circumstances related to the Williams murder but only two for the Burrows murder. Accordingly, the judge must have reasoned that the two aggravating circumstances that were present in both cases were insufficient to warrant a death sentence but that the two additional aggravating circumstances present with respect to the Williams murder were sufficient to tip the balance in favor of a death sentence. But the Florida Supreme Court rejected one of these additional aggravating circumstances, i.e., that Williams' murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, finding the murder "consistent with ... a crime of passion" even though premeditated to a heightened degree. 564 So. 2d, at 1063-1064. Had the judge and jury been able to place Porter's life history "on the mitigating side of the scale," and appropriately reduced the ballast on the aggravating side of the scale, there is clearly a reasonable probability that the advisory jury--and the sentencing judge--"would have struck a different balance," Wiggins, 539 U. S., at 537, and it is unreasonable to conclude otherwise.
The Florida Supreme Court's decision that Porter was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to conduct a thorough--or even cursory--investigation is unreasonable. The Florida Supreme Court either did not consider or unreasonably discounted the mitigation evidence adduced in the postconviction hearing. Under Florida law, mental health evidence that does not rise to the level of establishing a statutory mitigating circumstance may nonetheless be considered by the sentencing judge and jury as mitigating. See, e.g., Hoskins v. State, 965 So. 2d 1, 17-18 (Fla. 2007) (per curiam). Indeed, the Constitution requires that "the sentencer in capital cases must be permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor." Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 112 (1982). Yet neither the postconviction trial court nor the Florida Supreme Court gave any consideration for the purpose of nonstatutory mitigation to Dr. Dee's testimony regarding the existence of a brain abnormality and cognitive defects.7 While the State's experts identified perceived problems with the tests that Dr. Dee used and the conclusions that he drew from them, it was not reasonable to discount entirely the effect that his testimony might have had on the jury or the sentencing judge.
Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court, following the state postconviction court, unreasonably discounted the evidence of Porter's childhood abuse and military service. It is unreasonable to discount to irrelevance the evidence of Porter's abusive childhood, especially when that kind of history may have particular salience for a jury evaluating Porter's behavior in his relationship with Williams. It is also unreasonable to conclude that Porter's military service would be reduced to "inconsequential proportions," 788 So. 2d, at 925, simply because the jury would also have learned that Porter went AWOL on more than one occasion. Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did.8 Moreover, the relevance of Porter's extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.9 The evidence that he was AWOL is consistent with this theory of mitigation and does not impeach or diminish the evidence of his service. To conclude otherwise reflects a failure to engage with what Porter actually went through in Korea.
As the two dissenting justices in the Florida Supreme Court reasoned, "there exists too much mitigating evidence that was not presented to now be ignored." Id., at 937 (Anstead, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Although the burden is on petitioner to show he was prejudiced by his counsel's deficiency, the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that Porter failed to meet this burden was an unreasonable application of our clearly established law. We do not require a defendant to show "that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome" of his penalty proceeding, but rather that he establish "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] outcome." Strickland, 466 U. S., at 693-694. This Porter has done.
The petition for certiorari is granted in part, and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote 1
We deny the petition insofar as it challenges his conviction.
Footnote 2
It is an aggravating factor under Florida law that "[t]he defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person." Fla. Stat. §921.141(5)(b) (1987). In Porter's case, the State established that factor by reference to Porter's contemporaneous convictions stemming from the same episode: two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault. Tr. 5 (Mar. 4, 1988).
Footnote 3
Porter explained to one of the doctors who examined him for competency to stand trial that he went AWOL in order to spend time with his son. Record 904.
Footnote 4
Porter's expert testified that these symptoms would "easily" warrant a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2 Tr. 233 (Jan. 5, 1996). PTSD is not uncommon among veterans returning from combat. See Hearing on Fiscal Year 2010 Budget for Veterans' Programs before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., 63 (2009) (uncorrected copy) (testimony of Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), reporting that approximately 23 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at a VA medical facility had been preliminarily diagnosed with PTSD).
Footnote 5
The State presented two experts, Dr. Riebsame and Dr. Kirkland. Neither of the State's experts had examined Porter, but each testified that based upon their review of the record, Porter met neither statutory mitigating circumstance.
Footnote 6
The postconviction court stated defense counsel "was not ineffective for failing to pursue mental health evaluations and ... [Porter] has thus failed to show sufficient evidence that any statutory mitigators could have been presented." Record 1210. It is not at all clear whether this stray comment addressed counsel's deficiency. If it did, then it was at most dicta, because the court expressly "decline[d] to make a determination regarding whether or not Defense Counsel was in fact deficient here." Id., at 1206. The Florida Supreme Court simply paraphrased the postconviction court when it stated "trial counsel's decision not to pursue mental evaluations did not exceed the bounds for competent counsel." Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923-924 (2001) (per curiam). But that court also expressly declined to answer the question of deficiency. Id., at 925.
Footnote 7
The Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that Porter had presented evidence of "statutory and nonstatutory mental mitigation," 788 So. 2d, at 921, but it did not consider Porter's mental health evidence in its discussion of nonstatutory mitigating evidence, id., at 924.
Footnote 8
See Abbott, The Civil War and the Crime Wave of 1865-70, 1 Soc. Serv. Rev. 212, 232-234 (1927) (discussing the movement to pardon or parole prisoners who were veterans of the Civil War); Rosenbaum, The Relationship Between War and Crime in the United States, 30 J. Crim. L. & C. 722, 733-734 (1940) (describing a 1922 study by the Wisconsin Board of Control that discussed the number of veterans imprisoned in the State and considered "the greater leniency that may be shown to ex-service men in court").
Footnote 9
Cf. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1170.9(a) (West Supp. 2009) (providing a special hearing for a person convicted of a crime "who alleges that he or she committed the offense as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or psychological problems stemming from service in a combat theater in the United States military"); Minn. Stat. §609.115, Subd. 10 (2008) (providing for a special process at sentencing if the defendant is a veteran and has been diagnosed as having a mental illness by a qualified psychiatrist).
Lyle Denniston's SCOTUS Blog: Post-combat stress as a defense
Monday, November 30th, 2009 1:14 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
The Supreme Court, in a sign of the times for a nation at war on two fronts, on Monday put defense lawyers on notice that they should be prepared to use evidence of “post-traumatic stress disorder” to try to save accused veterans from the death penalty. Ruling without full briefing or a hearing, and with no dissent noted, the Court apparently overturned the death sentence of a Florida veteran whose “combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man,” as the Court put it in Porter v. McCollum (08-10537), involving Korean war veteran George Porter, Jr. The unsigned opinion can be found here.
“Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did,” the opinion said. “The relevance of Porter’s extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.”
Because the case turned mainly on the specific facts of the prosecution and defense of Porter for murdering his former girlfriend and her boyfriend, it is not clear that the ruling will have a direct impact on other criminal cases in which combat stress might be a key factor. However, parts of the Court’s opinion read as if the Justices did intend to speak more broadly.
It noted that post-traumatic stress disorder “is not uncommon among veterans returning from combat,” and cited testimony before Congress this year by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki that “approximately 23 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at a vA medical facility had been preliminarily diagnoses with PTSD.” It also noted that, in Porter’s case specifically, a medical expert testified that his sysmptoms “would ‘easily’ warrant a diagnosis” of PTSD.
The Court also cited, clearly with approval, laws of two states that provide special legal protection for veterans involved in crimes and suffering from combat stress — a California law providing a special hearing for a person convicted of crime who claims the offense resulted from PTSD or other conditions stemming from military combat service, and a Minnesota law providing a special sentencing process for a vetrer dianosed with a mental illness.
In Porter’s case, the Court did not say explicitly that it was overturning his death sentence for his 1986 crimes. Rather, it concluded that he was entitled to relief in a post-conviction federal habeas case, on the theory that the jury, had it heard about his wartime experiences and other evidence about mental problems, it might well have refused to recommend a death sentence. The Court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit Court, presumably to order a new sentencing proceeding. The Court’s order did not say what the Justices expected to happen next.
Porter was wounded in two bouts of heavy fighting during his Army service in Korea. When he sought habeas relief after losing challenges in state court, his former commanding officer gave what the called a “moving description of those two battles” — testimony that was “only a fraction of the mitigating evidence that his counsel failed to discover or present during the penalty phaqse of his trial in 1988.”
Although a federal District judge had ruled in Porter’s favor, finding that the defense lawyer’s failure to put on the mitigating evidence resulted in a violation of his right to counsel, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the Florida Supreme Court was justified in finding that Porter did not suffer any prejudice from the omission of that evidence.
In its order, the Supreme Court said Porter was entitled to prevail on his habeas claim that his defense lawyer at trial had provided ineffective legal assistance. “The Florida Supreme Court;s decision that Porter was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to conduct a thorough — or even cursory — investigation is unreasonable.”
Quoting the dissenting judges on the state court, the Supreme Court opinion remarked that ” ‘there exists too much mitigating evidence that was nto presented to now be ignored.’ ”
The Court, however, voted to leave intact Porter’s guilty verdict for the murder of his girlfriend and her boyfriend. Thus, Porter’s remaining legal opportunity is for a new sentence, presumably with all of the favorable evidence put before the jury.
The Supreme Court, in a sign of the times for a nation at war on two fronts, on Monday put defense lawyers on notice that they should be prepared to use evidence of “post-traumatic stress disorder” to try to save accused veterans from the death penalty. Ruling without full briefing or a hearing, and with no dissent noted, the Court apparently overturned the death sentence of a Florida veteran whose “combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man,” as the Court put it in Porter v. McCollum (08-10537), involving Korean war veteran George Porter, Jr. The unsigned opinion can be found here.
“Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did,” the opinion said. “The relevance of Porter’s extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.”
Because the case turned mainly on the specific facts of the prosecution and defense of Porter for murdering his former girlfriend and her boyfriend, it is not clear that the ruling will have a direct impact on other criminal cases in which combat stress might be a key factor. However, parts of the Court’s opinion read as if the Justices did intend to speak more broadly.
It noted that post-traumatic stress disorder “is not uncommon among veterans returning from combat,” and cited testimony before Congress this year by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki that “approximately 23 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at a vA medical facility had been preliminarily diagnoses with PTSD.” It also noted that, in Porter’s case specifically, a medical expert testified that his sysmptoms “would ‘easily’ warrant a diagnosis” of PTSD.
The Court also cited, clearly with approval, laws of two states that provide special legal protection for veterans involved in crimes and suffering from combat stress — a California law providing a special hearing for a person convicted of crime who claims the offense resulted from PTSD or other conditions stemming from military combat service, and a Minnesota law providing a special sentencing process for a vetrer dianosed with a mental illness.
In Porter’s case, the Court did not say explicitly that it was overturning his death sentence for his 1986 crimes. Rather, it concluded that he was entitled to relief in a post-conviction federal habeas case, on the theory that the jury, had it heard about his wartime experiences and other evidence about mental problems, it might well have refused to recommend a death sentence. The Court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit Court, presumably to order a new sentencing proceeding. The Court’s order did not say what the Justices expected to happen next.
Porter was wounded in two bouts of heavy fighting during his Army service in Korea. When he sought habeas relief after losing challenges in state court, his former commanding officer gave what the called a “moving description of those two battles” — testimony that was “only a fraction of the mitigating evidence that his counsel failed to discover or present during the penalty phaqse of his trial in 1988.”
Although a federal District judge had ruled in Porter’s favor, finding that the defense lawyer’s failure to put on the mitigating evidence resulted in a violation of his right to counsel, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the Florida Supreme Court was justified in finding that Porter did not suffer any prejudice from the omission of that evidence.
In its order, the Supreme Court said Porter was entitled to prevail on his habeas claim that his defense lawyer at trial had provided ineffective legal assistance. “The Florida Supreme Court;s decision that Porter was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to conduct a thorough — or even cursory — investigation is unreasonable.”
Quoting the dissenting judges on the state court, the Supreme Court opinion remarked that ” ‘there exists too much mitigating evidence that was nto presented to now be ignored.’ ”
The Court, however, voted to leave intact Porter’s guilty verdict for the murder of his girlfriend and her boyfriend. Thus, Porter’s remaining legal opportunity is for a new sentence, presumably with all of the favorable evidence put before the jury.
ROB FIELD Flacking for HEATHER BEAVEN -- Both would have public ignore lithium battery safety issues on aircraft
Usually, it's Democrats who want to regulate safety and Republicans who want legislative loopholes big enough to smash a Mack truck through them.
As he does once every ten years or so (the last time was on Glass-Steagall repeal), Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA spoke out in favor of regulating something. Good for him. MICA spoke his truth about exothermic, fire-prone lithium batteries on aircraft. HEATHER BEAVEN attacked him, with ROB FIELD flacking for her, talking about how few incidents there are where there are fires. This is what a non-serious Congressional candidate dared to say about airplane fire safety:
NEW VIDEO: JOHN MICA’S ARCHAIC IDEAS ARE OUT OF STEP WITH THE MODERN WORLD
While our families await help from Congress to spur job creation in Florida, John Mica introduced legislation prohibiting lithium batteries on airplanes. This would ban cell phones, laptops and I-pods on commercial airplane flights in America. If John Mica is successful, this would greatly harm large and small business communication. Clearly John Mica is not only out of touch with today's business traveler, he does not understand today's world. In the 20th century, we could "unplug" for days but that just isn't how the world works today.
Even his fellow Republicans in Congress disagree with John Mica on his legislation. They know that Mica's legislation would further depress innovation and job creation.
Click here to watch Mica's comments on banning laptops, cell phones and lithium batteries on commercial airplanes.
http://www.beavenforcongress.com/newsletter/BFCEmail11-24-09a.htm
HEATHER BEAVEN is a low-blow, cheap shot artist who does not research issues.
She emotes. She does not deserve our votes.
As the article below states, "DOT said that "more than 40 air transport-related incidents involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries have been identified" since 1991, adding that "many of these incidents were directly related to the lack of awareness of the regulations, risks and required safety measures applicable."
HEATHER BEAVEN sounds ageist and haughty, as if she caught MICA doing something naughty. While MICA is out of touch on many issues, airplane fire safety is not one of them.
During the 1990s, I assisted a fireman whistleblower when USAF took his security clearance for reporting fire safety concerns on the new Air Force One under construction. I also helped a NASA contractor space flight hardware designer raise concerns about exothermic materials on board the Space Shuttles. Knowing about air safety and exothermic chemical reactions (and what can happen), I reckon I know better than ROB FIELD and HEATHER BEAVEN this issue needs.
Good science. Fidelity to safety standards. Expertise.
Not BEAVEN's flippant excuses for "debate" from someone who's never debated MICA.
Not publicity-hogging nostrums by someone who has no pertinent expertise.
In Congress, there are "work horses" and "show horses."
Sadly, it seems that HEATHER BEAVEN would not be a "work horse" -- she would be a show horse, all hat and no cattle.
In their lust to land a nice gig on Capitol Hill, some Democratic lightweights are willing to lie about JOHN MICA (or even other Democrats).
In particular, noisome ex-MALLOY flack ROB FIELD is despicable, having falsely accused Faye Armitage of noncompliance with the Federal Election Commission filing requirements. ROB FIELD is neither a scholar or a gentleman. False reports are torts and crimes. They should be treated as such.
Thanks for nothing to ROB FIELD and HEATHER BEAVEN.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Faye Armitage for running for Congress and earning nearly 150,000 votes after spending only some $32,000.
Faye Armitage hasn't raised a lot of money for 2010 yet (not even enough to trigger FEC reporting requirements ROB FIELD couldn't begin to understand).
Faye Armitage is in no hurry to sell her soul, and she won't.
But Faye Armitage has something special -- the respect of Democrats throughout the Seventh Congressional District, who know the difference between sincerity and hypocrisy.
Is HEATHER BEAVEN a "spoiler" because she came out of nowhere to run for Congress as a Stealth candidate, one who won't study before opining and one who has no principled reason why we should run anyone else other than the courageous lady who got nearly 150,000 votes last year running against JOHN LUIGI MICA?
Like Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, some consultants and candidates resemble a ventriloquist act.
To ROB FIELDS and HEATHER BEAVEN: "hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue."
As he does once every ten years or so (the last time was on Glass-Steagall repeal), Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA spoke out in favor of regulating something. Good for him. MICA spoke his truth about exothermic, fire-prone lithium batteries on aircraft. HEATHER BEAVEN attacked him, with ROB FIELD flacking for her, talking about how few incidents there are where there are fires. This is what a non-serious Congressional candidate dared to say about airplane fire safety:
NEW VIDEO: JOHN MICA’S ARCHAIC IDEAS ARE OUT OF STEP WITH THE MODERN WORLD
While our families await help from Congress to spur job creation in Florida, John Mica introduced legislation prohibiting lithium batteries on airplanes. This would ban cell phones, laptops and I-pods on commercial airplane flights in America. If John Mica is successful, this would greatly harm large and small business communication. Clearly John Mica is not only out of touch with today's business traveler, he does not understand today's world. In the 20th century, we could "unplug" for days but that just isn't how the world works today.
Even his fellow Republicans in Congress disagree with John Mica on his legislation. They know that Mica's legislation would further depress innovation and job creation.
Click here to watch Mica's comments on banning laptops, cell phones and lithium batteries on commercial airplanes.
http://www.beavenforcongress.com/newsletter/BFCEmail11-24-09a.htm
HEATHER BEAVEN is a low-blow, cheap shot artist who does not research issues.
She emotes. She does not deserve our votes.
As the article below states, "DOT said that "more than 40 air transport-related incidents involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries have been identified" since 1991, adding that "many of these incidents were directly related to the lack of awareness of the regulations, risks and required safety measures applicable."
HEATHER BEAVEN sounds ageist and haughty, as if she caught MICA doing something naughty. While MICA is out of touch on many issues, airplane fire safety is not one of them.
During the 1990s, I assisted a fireman whistleblower when USAF took his security clearance for reporting fire safety concerns on the new Air Force One under construction. I also helped a NASA contractor space flight hardware designer raise concerns about exothermic materials on board the Space Shuttles. Knowing about air safety and exothermic chemical reactions (and what can happen), I reckon I know better than ROB FIELD and HEATHER BEAVEN this issue needs.
Good science. Fidelity to safety standards. Expertise.
Not BEAVEN's flippant excuses for "debate" from someone who's never debated MICA.
Not publicity-hogging nostrums by someone who has no pertinent expertise.
In Congress, there are "work horses" and "show horses."
Sadly, it seems that HEATHER BEAVEN would not be a "work horse" -- she would be a show horse, all hat and no cattle.
In their lust to land a nice gig on Capitol Hill, some Democratic lightweights are willing to lie about JOHN MICA (or even other Democrats).
In particular, noisome ex-MALLOY flack ROB FIELD is despicable, having falsely accused Faye Armitage of noncompliance with the Federal Election Commission filing requirements. ROB FIELD is neither a scholar or a gentleman. False reports are torts and crimes. They should be treated as such.
Thanks for nothing to ROB FIELD and HEATHER BEAVEN.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Faye Armitage for running for Congress and earning nearly 150,000 votes after spending only some $32,000.
Faye Armitage hasn't raised a lot of money for 2010 yet (not even enough to trigger FEC reporting requirements ROB FIELD couldn't begin to understand).
Faye Armitage is in no hurry to sell her soul, and she won't.
But Faye Armitage has something special -- the respect of Democrats throughout the Seventh Congressional District, who know the difference between sincerity and hypocrisy.
Is HEATHER BEAVEN a "spoiler" because she came out of nowhere to run for Congress as a Stealth candidate, one who won't study before opining and one who has no principled reason why we should run anyone else other than the courageous lady who got nearly 150,000 votes last year running against JOHN LUIGI MICA?
Like Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, some consultants and candidates resemble a ventriloquist act.
To ROB FIELDS and HEATHER BEAVEN: "hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue."
Air Transport World: DOT issues advisory on air shipping lithium batteries, warns of fire hazard
DOT issues advisory on air shipping lithium batteries, warns of fire hazard
Thursday October 8, 2009
US Dept. of Transportation yesterday issued a safety advisory regarding the shipment of lithium batteries in passenger and cargo aircraft, warning that battery-caused "fires in aircraft can result in catastrophic events presenting unique challenges not encountered in other transport modes."
The Air Line Pilots Assn. in August detailed incidents in which "smoke or evidence of fire associated with battery shipments has occurred" aboard aircraft and called for the US government "to prohibit shipments of lithium batteries on. . .aircraft until new regulations are in place" (ATWOnline, Aug. 26). Two DOT agencies, FAA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, jointly issued yesterday's advisory.
"PHMSA and FAA are concerned that many persons who ship lithium batteries do not recognize the hazards posed by these batteries during transportation," the agencies warned, adding that "overheating has the potential to create a thermal runaway, a chain reaction leading to self-heating and release of the battery's stored energy."
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement that "this advisory puts all shippers on notice that noncompliance with the safety regulations is not acceptable. I have asked the department's enforcement personnel to increase their inspections and step up enforcement where necessary."
The advisory states that when a package contains multiple lithium cells or batteries, it "must" be "marked to indicate that it contains lithium batteries and that special procedures should be followed in the event the package is damaged." It should be accompanied by a document also indicating its contents and procedures to be followed in the event of damage. Further, the package should be "capable of withstanding a 1.2-meter drop test in any orientation without damage to cells or batteries contained in the package, without shifting of the contents that would allow short circuits and without release of package contents." The package also cannot be more than 30 kg. (66 lb.) in gross mass, the agencies said.
DOT said that "more than 40 air transport-related incidents involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries have been identified" since 1991, adding that "many of these incidents were directly related to the lack of awareness of the regulations, risks and required safety measures applicable."
by Aaron Karp
Thursday October 8, 2009
US Dept. of Transportation yesterday issued a safety advisory regarding the shipment of lithium batteries in passenger and cargo aircraft, warning that battery-caused "fires in aircraft can result in catastrophic events presenting unique challenges not encountered in other transport modes."
The Air Line Pilots Assn. in August detailed incidents in which "smoke or evidence of fire associated with battery shipments has occurred" aboard aircraft and called for the US government "to prohibit shipments of lithium batteries on. . .aircraft until new regulations are in place" (ATWOnline, Aug. 26). Two DOT agencies, FAA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, jointly issued yesterday's advisory.
"PHMSA and FAA are concerned that many persons who ship lithium batteries do not recognize the hazards posed by these batteries during transportation," the agencies warned, adding that "overheating has the potential to create a thermal runaway, a chain reaction leading to self-heating and release of the battery's stored energy."
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement that "this advisory puts all shippers on notice that noncompliance with the safety regulations is not acceptable. I have asked the department's enforcement personnel to increase their inspections and step up enforcement where necessary."
The advisory states that when a package contains multiple lithium cells or batteries, it "must" be "marked to indicate that it contains lithium batteries and that special procedures should be followed in the event the package is damaged." It should be accompanied by a document also indicating its contents and procedures to be followed in the event of damage. Further, the package should be "capable of withstanding a 1.2-meter drop test in any orientation without damage to cells or batteries contained in the package, without shifting of the contents that would allow short circuits and without release of package contents." The package also cannot be more than 30 kg. (66 lb.) in gross mass, the agencies said.
DOT said that "more than 40 air transport-related incidents involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries have been identified" since 1991, adding that "many of these incidents were directly related to the lack of awareness of the regulations, risks and required safety measures applicable."
by Aaron Karp
During Republican Administrations, Did Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA Ever Ask An Inspector General to Investigate Anything?
Creepy U.S. Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA just asked the Inspector General of the FAA to investigate something. Good on him. See below.
But how many times has JOHN LUIGI MICA ever asked anyone to investigate anything?
Seriously, during Republican administrations, MICA is a toady.
During Democratic administrations, is MICA a bully? We remember his horrible remarks about President Clinton, whom he called "a little booger."
When it comes to rhetoric vs. performance, who needs a snotty Congressman, too snooty to speak November 8th to St. Augustine veterans and friends, to whom his aide lied about his unavailability (MICA was attending a Republican fundraiser in Altamonte Springs)?
But how many times has JOHN LUIGI MICA ever asked anyone to investigate anything?
Seriously, during Republican administrations, MICA is a toady.
During Democratic administrations, is MICA a bully? We remember his horrible remarks about President Clinton, whom he called "a little booger."
When it comes to rhetoric vs. performance, who needs a snotty Congressman, too snooty to speak November 8th to St. Augustine veterans and friends, to whom his aide lied about his unavailability (MICA was attending a Republican fundraiser in Altamonte Springs)?
Federal Times: Rep. Mica Asks for Inspector General Audit
IG to audit FAA stimulus spending
The Transportation Department's inspector general plans to audit $1.3 billion in economic stimulus money earmarked for projects at the Federal Aviation Administration, according to a memo released last week.
The money was designated for two programs: The Airport Improvement Program, a grant program that helps airports improve safety; and a facilities and equipment fund that pays for FAA improvements. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., asked the IG to review the spending to see whether it is creating or saving jobs.
A memo released by the IG in August raised questions about the agency's use of stimulus funds. FAA awarded a $13.9 million contract, for example, to improve the airport in Akiachak, Alaska — a town of 659 residents that's just 14 miles from Bethel, which has one of the busiest airports in the state.
The Transportation Department's inspector general plans to audit $1.3 billion in economic stimulus money earmarked for projects at the Federal Aviation Administration, according to a memo released last week.
The money was designated for two programs: The Airport Improvement Program, a grant program that helps airports improve safety; and a facilities and equipment fund that pays for FAA improvements. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., asked the IG to review the spending to see whether it is creating or saving jobs.
A memo released by the IG in August raised questions about the agency's use of stimulus funds. FAA awarded a $13.9 million contract, for example, to improve the airport in Akiachak, Alaska — a town of 659 residents that's just 14 miles from Bethel, which has one of the busiest airports in the state.
TULSA WORLD: Web site shows what House members spend
by: JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
12/1/2009 3:58:44 AM
Search the new House disbursements Web site for expenses reported by U.S. representatives from Oklahoma and the rest of the nation.
WASHINGTON — For the first time, the U.S. House on Monday posted an electronic version of a document detailing the way its members spend public funds in their individual offices.
Officially known as the Statement of Disbursements, the document has been published previously in printed form. Those books, however, have not been readily available to the general public.
Salaries make up the bulk of the expenses.
Other expenses detailed by the document can range from office supplies and travel reimbursements to the amounts lawmakers have spent on bottled water and pest control.
U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., said he was pleased that greater transparency has been added to the work of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"By shining more light on the process, citizens have greater access to information about how official resources are used to represent them," Boren said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who directed the online posting in June, said it provides a full accounting of members' spending for official congressional business.
"The continued publication of these statements online will expand accountability to taxpayers and the press," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
The statements have been published quarterly since 1964. The Statement of Disbursements electronically posted Monday covers the third quarter of 2009.
Oklahoma delegation expenditures
According to the figures in the newly posted report that covers expenditures from July 1 through Sept. 30:
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., spent $2 0,339 for staff compensation; $33,330 for printing and reproduction; $28,628 for rent, communication and utilities; $10,588 for franked mail; $9, 5 for travel; $5,708 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., spent $215,580 for staff compensation; $27,29 for rent, communication and utilities; $27,281 for franked mail; $20,579 for travel; $3,363 for printing and reproduction; $5,581 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., spent $187,398 for staff compensation; $35, 92 for rent, communication and utilities; $33,092 for travel; $28,236 for franked mail; $25, 18 for printing and reproduction; $5,589 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., spent $2 0,189 for staff compensation; $ 3,613 for franked mail; $31,598 for travel; $25,0 6 for printing and reproduction; $2 , 96 for rent, communication and utilities; $ ,595 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., spent $212,881 for staff compensation; $29,159 for rent, communication and utilities; $18,295 for franked mail; $16, 27 for travel. $1,260 for supplies and materials.
Jim Myers 202-484-1424
Jim.Myers@tulsaworld.com
Copyright © 2009, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
12/1/2009 3:58:44 AM
Search the new House disbursements Web site for expenses reported by U.S. representatives from Oklahoma and the rest of the nation.
WASHINGTON — For the first time, the U.S. House on Monday posted an electronic version of a document detailing the way its members spend public funds in their individual offices.
Officially known as the Statement of Disbursements, the document has been published previously in printed form. Those books, however, have not been readily available to the general public.
Salaries make up the bulk of the expenses.
Other expenses detailed by the document can range from office supplies and travel reimbursements to the amounts lawmakers have spent on bottled water and pest control.
U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., said he was pleased that greater transparency has been added to the work of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"By shining more light on the process, citizens have greater access to information about how official resources are used to represent them," Boren said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who directed the online posting in June, said it provides a full accounting of members' spending for official congressional business.
"The continued publication of these statements online will expand accountability to taxpayers and the press," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
The statements have been published quarterly since 1964. The Statement of Disbursements electronically posted Monday covers the third quarter of 2009.
Oklahoma delegation expenditures
According to the figures in the newly posted report that covers expenditures from July 1 through Sept. 30:
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., spent $2 0,339 for staff compensation; $33,330 for printing and reproduction; $28,628 for rent, communication and utilities; $10,588 for franked mail; $9, 5 for travel; $5,708 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., spent $215,580 for staff compensation; $27,29 for rent, communication and utilities; $27,281 for franked mail; $20,579 for travel; $3,363 for printing and reproduction; $5,581 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., spent $187,398 for staff compensation; $35, 92 for rent, communication and utilities; $33,092 for travel; $28,236 for franked mail; $25, 18 for printing and reproduction; $5,589 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., spent $2 0,189 for staff compensation; $ 3,613 for franked mail; $31,598 for travel; $25,0 6 for printing and reproduction; $2 , 96 for rent, communication and utilities; $ ,595 for supplies and materials.
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., spent $212,881 for staff compensation; $29,159 for rent, communication and utilities; $18,295 for franked mail; $16, 27 for travel. $1,260 for supplies and materials.
Jim Myers 202-484-1424
Jim.Myers@tulsaworld.com
Copyright © 2009, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved
CONGRESSMAN JOHN LUIGI MICA PREVARICATES TO VETERANS
There was a lovely Veterans Day tribute presented by Coquina Crossing residents on November 8, 2009, commencing from 3-6 PM at Flagler College. The focus was on Korean War. (Last year was World War II and next year will be Vietnam).
St. Augustine and St. Johns County veterans, residents and public officials attended, including our 2008 Democratic Congressional candidate Faye Armitage.
Our Seventh District Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA (R-Winter Park) was a no-show, with his remarks read by an aide, WILEY DECK.
Veterans and guests were informed by WILEY DECK that JOHN MICA was "on the House floor last night" implying that MICA was just too tuckered to come to St. Augustine.
Well, hold on to your seats. It turns out that MICA was in Altamonte Springs later that day, inveighing against health insurance reform at a $150 a plate Republican fundraiser, which is named after Lincoln and Reagan. It was Lincoln who said, "we must disenthrall ourselves."
There was a VIP reception at 6 PM in Altamonte Springs, where people paid $250 to hobnob with JOHN LUIGI MICA and U.S. Rep. JOHN BOEHNER (R-Ohio). MICA chose to go to the GOP fundraiser and stiffed the St. Johns County veterans, who were told only five days before that MICA would be attending and speaking about the importance of veterans.
Again, here's the Seminole Sentinel story that shows U.S. Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA's staff prevaricated about MICA's putative unavailability:
National officials rally conservatives
By Abraham Aboraya
November 11, 2009
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS - On Saturday, Representative John Boehner and Representative John Mica voted in the capital against President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation.
On Sunday, they were more than 830 miles south, speaking at the Seminole County Republican Party's Lincoln Reagan Day Dinner at the Altamonte Springs Hilton.
Mica, whose district includes parts of Altamonte Springs and Casselberry, and Boehner, the highest ranking Republican in the House, were the featured speakers.
Both used the opportunity to take shots at the Democrats' bill, saying that the 2010 election would bring a check to the Democrats.
"This is the beginning of the end of the other side for what they did to the American people last night," Mica said.
Boehner's statements a few minutes later echoed Mica's.
"The only thing we can do over the next year is make sure we elect Republicans to congressional districts around the country, and if we do, we will win," Boehner said. "We'll put a check on this administration's ability to socialize our economy."
Boehner represents Ohio's Eighth Congressional District, and comes from a catholic family with 11 brothers and sisters. Boehner told the full Crystal Ballroom that he was raised as a Democrat but began changing his mind when his business paid more in taxes in 1978 than it earned gross in 1976.
Boehner said that, in 1970, the top income tax rate bracket was 70 percent.
"I went to Washington because I was convinced government was choking the goose that was laying golden eggs," Boehner said. "I went there to get government's hand off the goose so the goose could keep laying golden eggs. Needless to say, I haven't succeeded yet."
Out of all the speakers, Boehner seemed to draw the biggest laughs and the biggest applause. His speech style seems to blend tongue-in-cheek and serious rhetoric.
He said that the American people have been rejecting the change the new administration is bringing.
"I went to Washington because I believe in our cause," Boehner said. "You're here tonight because you believe in our cause. One only has to look at what's happened this year to realize that our cause is the right cause. ... Every change that [Obama]'s offered, the American people soundly rejected."
The speakers weren't just federal, either. Florida Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum spoke at the dinner.
He said that, historically, Florida has depended on agriculture and tourism as its two main industries. And while he said he would work to keep those industries booming, Florida has to branch out.
"We cannot any longer depend on just those two industries for the future of Florida," he said. "We have to grow our state. I happen to believe in growing wealth, not redistributing it. I think that's extraordinarily important."
The dinner included a plethora of elected officials and notables in Seminole County. Former Oviedo congressman Tom Feeney was at the event, as was Florida representative Sandy Adams.
County Commissioners Bob Dallari and Mike McLean were at the event - a fundraiser for local Republicans - as well as Oviedo's recently re-elected Mayor Mary Lou Andrews. Deputy Mayor Dominic Persampiere was also in attendance.
Persampiere said he liked the event. He almost won one of the silent auctions for a framed picture of Lincoln, complete with complete strands of his hair and a piece of the flag from his funeral procession.
"It was a well put-on event, and, as always, well attended," Persampiere said. "The Republican Party certainly isn't dead. They just talked about balancing the views on what's going on. It wasn't completely partisan, it wasn't over the top, it was 'Hey, let's have a conversation.' The speakers were excellent."
Boehner touched on how difficult it's been to be a Republican as of late.
"Over the last couple election cycles, it hasn't been easy to be a Republican," he said. "We made our share of mistakes; the American people gave up on us. My job as Republican leader of the House ... is to help give the American people reasons to believe."
All the speakers were introduced by Patsy Gilbert, a professional Sarah Palin impersonator. She gave the keynote speakers boxes of Mooseburger Helper - buckshot free and "locked and loaded for flavor."
"I've been doing it (the Palin impressions) since the morning after her nomination acceptance speech," Gilbert said. "I go all over the country doing it. ... I've been almost everywhere in the lower 48 doing it, but I'm based out of Orlando."
Now, MICA's been known to play fast and loose with the truth before. This hard-hearted hanna is no veteran. His staff lied to veterans and their friends -- some 800 of them in Flagler College Auditorium.
Here's the St. Augustine REcord article stating only five days before that MICA was planning to speak at the veterans tribute:
Variety show at Flagler to honor Korean War veterans
PETER GUINTA
peter.guinta@staugustine.com
Published Tuesday, November 03, 2009
During the bloody Korean War, American and United Nations forces battled below-freezing temperatures, impassable mountain terrain, icy swollen rivers and hundreds of thousands of Communist Chinese and North Korean troops launching fanatic human wave attacks.
A 1953 armistice ended the fighting, but America mourned its 36,516 dead, 92,134 wounded, 8,176 missing in action and 7,245 prisoners of war, and a weary nation soon dropped Korea from its national consciousness.
Now, however, St. Augustine producer Michael Rothfeld and the St. Johns County Veterans Council want Americans to "unforget" Korea and to honor those who fought there.
Rothfeld, a retired high school history teacher, said, "I was in college during the (Vietnam) war, married with a child. (But) I've always had an interest in what our veterans did for this country. I wanted to preserve their memory."
He and the council will present a patriotic variety show at 3 p.m. Sunday at Flagler College Auditorium.
It is titled "Korea: Forgotten War, Remembered Heroes" and will feature the personal stories of five local Korean War veterans, and entertain with patriotic music, skits by the Coquina Players, a service salute, comedy, dancing by the Coquina Dancers, and singing by Tim Rippey.
The show is free and open to the public.
U.S. Rep. John Mica, R, Winter Park, will remark on "The Importance of Veterans Day," and retired master sergeant and Veterans Council chair Ray Quinn (U.S. Army, Ret.), will serve as master of ceremonies.
At the end of the show, a short film directed by Dr. Nadia Ramoutar called "Korea: Forgotten War, Remembered Heroes," the same as the show, will be screened.
Ramoutar is media arts and documentary director for Art Institute of Jacksonville and she worked with Professor Steve Voguit of Flagler College, a documentary historian, on the film.
In the documentary, as well as at the show, five local veterans, soldiers Richard Bassett, Jack Wentz and George Gaspard, and U.S. Marines Bob Bey and James Vanairsdale, relate their experiences and remembrances of Korea.
Dr. Henry Moreland, a University of North Florida professor, commander of the Korean War Veterans Association, Jacksonville, will present Ms. Susie Birdsong, who was a child in Korea during the Korean War.
Rothfeld said that in 2007 he filled Flagler Auditorium with a similar show he produced.
"The purpose of this (show) is to remind people that the average person on the street could be someone who served our country in Korea and that we should remember that service," Rothfeld said. "That was what motivated me."
If You Go
Show and film: "Korea: Forgotten War, Remembered Heroes"
Cost: Free
Time: 3 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 8
Place: Flagler Auditorium
Parking: A free shuttle to and from the downtown parking garage will be provided by Old Town Trolley Tours.
NY TImes: No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said the debate on health care was one of the most significant in Senate history.
The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.
Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point.
Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.
For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law.
Administration officials said the report provided a lift to the bill, which embodies Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority.
“The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo.”
But Republican senators like Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said the report validated their concerns. They focused on the prediction that unsubsidized premiums in the individual insurance market, less than a fifth of those with health insurance, would rise an average of 10 percent to 13 percent.
“The analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms our worst fears,” Mr. Grassley said. “Millions of people who are expecting lower costs as a result of health reform will end up paying more in the form of higher premiums. For large and small employers that have been struggling for years with skyrocketing health insurance premiums, C.B.O. concludes this bill will do little, if anything, to provide relief.”
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the highly partisan floor debate that opened Monday afternoon was one of the most significant in the history of the Senate. It is expected to continue for much of December, with supporters and opponents alike offering a raft of amendments as the White House and Democratic leaders seek to put together the 60-vote coalition necessary to win passage.
Administration officials continued to reach out to lawmakers in both parties to try to build support. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said she met Monday for 45 minutes with Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, to discuss her concerns about the legislation.
In its report, the budget office compared estimates of premiums in 2016 under the new legislation and under current law. In either case, after seven years of inflation, premiums would be substantially higher than they are today.
The budget office said the analysis of premiums was extremely complex, so the experience of individuals and families "could vary significantly from the average.”
“In general,” it said, “the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy, and decrease premiums for those who are older and relatively unhealthy.”
Under the legislation, it said, the average premium per person in the individual insurance market would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher than under current law. But, it said, most people in this market — 18 million of the 32 million people buying insurance on their own — would qualify for federal subsidies, which would reduce their costs well below what they would have to pay under current law.
For people receiving subsidies, the budget office said, premiums would be 56 percent to 59 percent lower than under current law.
Without subsidies, it said, premiums under the bill would average $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 a year for families buying coverage on their own. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $5,500 and $13,100.
“This study indicates that, for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs,” Mr. Bayh said. “For the remainder, more will see their costs go down than up.”
Under the bill, the budget office said, individual policies would have to provide more benefits and pay a larger share of costs than most existing policies do. In other words, it said, some people would pay more, but would also get more.
Insurers, it said, would have to cover certain services that, in many cases, are not covered by existing policies in the individual insurance market. These include maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health services and substance abuse treatment. Moreover, it said, under the legislation, insurance would cover an average of 72 percent of medical costs for people buying insurance on their own, up from 60 percent under current law.
The budget office said it foresaw “smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage.”
In groups with 50 or fewer employees, it said, unsubsidized premiums in 2016 would average $7,800 a year for individuals and $19,200 for families — scarcely any different from the amounts expected under current law. Of the 25 million people receiving coverage from small businesses, it said, 3 million would qualify for subsidies, which would reduce their premiums by an average of 8 percent to 11 percent.
Large employers would generally not be eligible for such assistance. Their premiums in 2016 under the bill would average $7,300 for individual coverage and $20,100 for family coverage, the report said. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $7,400 for individual coverage and $20,300 for family coverage.
The Senate bill would impose an excise tax on high-premium health plans offered by employers. People who remain in such “Cadillac health plans” would pay higher premiums, but most people would avoid the effect of the tax by enrolling in plans with lower premiums, the budget office said.
Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said the debate on health care was one of the most significant in Senate history.
The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.
Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point.
Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.
For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law.
Administration officials said the report provided a lift to the bill, which embodies Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority.
“The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo.”
But Republican senators like Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said the report validated their concerns. They focused on the prediction that unsubsidized premiums in the individual insurance market, less than a fifth of those with health insurance, would rise an average of 10 percent to 13 percent.
“The analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms our worst fears,” Mr. Grassley said. “Millions of people who are expecting lower costs as a result of health reform will end up paying more in the form of higher premiums. For large and small employers that have been struggling for years with skyrocketing health insurance premiums, C.B.O. concludes this bill will do little, if anything, to provide relief.”
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the highly partisan floor debate that opened Monday afternoon was one of the most significant in the history of the Senate. It is expected to continue for much of December, with supporters and opponents alike offering a raft of amendments as the White House and Democratic leaders seek to put together the 60-vote coalition necessary to win passage.
Administration officials continued to reach out to lawmakers in both parties to try to build support. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said she met Monday for 45 minutes with Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, to discuss her concerns about the legislation.
In its report, the budget office compared estimates of premiums in 2016 under the new legislation and under current law. In either case, after seven years of inflation, premiums would be substantially higher than they are today.
The budget office said the analysis of premiums was extremely complex, so the experience of individuals and families "could vary significantly from the average.”
“In general,” it said, “the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy, and decrease premiums for those who are older and relatively unhealthy.”
Under the legislation, it said, the average premium per person in the individual insurance market would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher than under current law. But, it said, most people in this market — 18 million of the 32 million people buying insurance on their own — would qualify for federal subsidies, which would reduce their costs well below what they would have to pay under current law.
For people receiving subsidies, the budget office said, premiums would be 56 percent to 59 percent lower than under current law.
Without subsidies, it said, premiums under the bill would average $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 a year for families buying coverage on their own. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $5,500 and $13,100.
“This study indicates that, for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs,” Mr. Bayh said. “For the remainder, more will see their costs go down than up.”
Under the bill, the budget office said, individual policies would have to provide more benefits and pay a larger share of costs than most existing policies do. In other words, it said, some people would pay more, but would also get more.
Insurers, it said, would have to cover certain services that, in many cases, are not covered by existing policies in the individual insurance market. These include maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health services and substance abuse treatment. Moreover, it said, under the legislation, insurance would cover an average of 72 percent of medical costs for people buying insurance on their own, up from 60 percent under current law.
The budget office said it foresaw “smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage.”
In groups with 50 or fewer employees, it said, unsubsidized premiums in 2016 would average $7,800 a year for individuals and $19,200 for families — scarcely any different from the amounts expected under current law. Of the 25 million people receiving coverage from small businesses, it said, 3 million would qualify for subsidies, which would reduce their premiums by an average of 8 percent to 11 percent.
Large employers would generally not be eligible for such assistance. Their premiums in 2016 under the bill would average $7,300 for individual coverage and $20,100 for family coverage, the report said. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $7,400 for individual coverage and $20,300 for family coverage.
The Senate bill would impose an excise tax on high-premium health plans offered by employers. People who remain in such “Cadillac health plans” would pay higher premiums, but most people would avoid the effect of the tax by enrolling in plans with lower premiums, the budget office said.
Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
JOHN LUIGI MICA BRAGS OF VOTING AGAINST HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM AS MILLIONS OF JOBLESS LOSE HEALTH INSURANCE
Jobless Americans are losing their health benefits in record numbers. See below. Health insurance reform will cover everyone for the same money (see above).
Talk about being out of touch with the American people. Our extremist Congressman, JOHN LUIGT MICA, bragged (above) about voting against health insurance reform. MICA and other Congressman have the best health insurance in America, the Cadillac of Cadillacs, as well as the House physician, at their beck and call.
Color him deeply insensitive -- he represents the George W. Bush constituency -- "the haves and the have mores" -- his "base."
NY TImes: Millions of Jobless Lose Health Insurance
Prescriptions - Making Sense of the Health Care Debate
November 30, 2009, 7:03 pm
Millions of Jobless Lose Insurance Aid
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
The changes that the health-care bills in Congress envision are years away — not soon enough to help the millions of unemployed people who, on Monday, lost their temporary federal subsidies for health insurance.
That means that people like Linda Rasor, 56, who lives in Haslett, near East Lansing, Mich., and was laid off from her energy consulting job in February, will have to start paying triple the cost for their health insurance.
As losses rippled out from Michigan’s devastated auto industry, Ms. Rasor was laid off from Johnson Controls Inc. With the federal subsidy, she has been paying $407 a month to cover herself, her husband, who is an independent contractor, and her daughter, who is in college. But with the subsidy now gone, her premiums will jump to $1,100 a month.
The subsidies, which Congress approved earlier this year under the economic stimulus package, expired Monday for the first wave of recipients. The package provided $25 billion in temporary financial help for unemployed people who were still on their employers’ insurance plans under the decades-old Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, popularly known as Cobra.
The subsidies were intended to allow an estimated 7 million people who lost their jobs between September 2008 and December 2009 to help keep that insurance for up to nine months starting in March; normally they would have to pay the full premiums, but the subsidies covered 65 percent of that cost.
Ms. Rasor receives $1,400 in unemployment insurance, which means the new premiums will leave her with just $300 at the end of each month — cutting into her ability to help her husband pay the mortgage and her daughter’s tuition.
A new report by Families USA, http://www.familiesusa.org/ a health advocacy group based in Washington, has found that the average Cobra premium varies widely from state to state — and in nine states is actually higher than the average unemployment insurance check.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, predicted that most people who lost their subsidies on Monday would not be able to pay the full cost of their premiums and would drop their coverage altogether.
He said that the broader health care legislation in Congress would help by establishing new insurance marketplaces with tax credits — but they would not be set up for several years, leaving millions of people stranded in the interim.
Some Democrats have introduced legislation outside of the health care bills to extend the Cobra subsidies a few months and even increase them. The subject may come up as part of a new jobs bill in the near future, but nothing has been approved so far.
Ms. Rasor has stitched together some consulting work, but it carries no health benefits and the local jobs landscape is bleak.
“I’m in Michigan,” she said. “Need I say more?” The state’s unemployment rate is 15 percent, the highest in the nation.
Ms. Rasor said she would pay the full Cobra premium for now because she could not find the same coverage for less, and she is afraid that she would be turned down by a new insurer because she just had a knee cap replacement, which would be considered a pre-existing condition.
But she will have to find an alternative sometime next year anyway, because eligibility for Cobra lasts only 18 months.
She has given herself until the end of December to find work, she said, then she and her husband will start looking out of state.
“I feel like I’m part of the Grapes of Wrath,” she said. “I’ve got to leave home to find a job.”
November 30, 2009, 7:03 pm
Millions of Jobless Lose Insurance Aid
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
The changes that the health-care bills in Congress envision are years away — not soon enough to help the millions of unemployed people who, on Monday, lost their temporary federal subsidies for health insurance.
That means that people like Linda Rasor, 56, who lives in Haslett, near East Lansing, Mich., and was laid off from her energy consulting job in February, will have to start paying triple the cost for their health insurance.
As losses rippled out from Michigan’s devastated auto industry, Ms. Rasor was laid off from Johnson Controls Inc. With the federal subsidy, she has been paying $407 a month to cover herself, her husband, who is an independent contractor, and her daughter, who is in college. But with the subsidy now gone, her premiums will jump to $1,100 a month.
The subsidies, which Congress approved earlier this year under the economic stimulus package, expired Monday for the first wave of recipients. The package provided $25 billion in temporary financial help for unemployed people who were still on their employers’ insurance plans under the decades-old Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, popularly known as Cobra.
The subsidies were intended to allow an estimated 7 million people who lost their jobs between September 2008 and December 2009 to help keep that insurance for up to nine months starting in March; normally they would have to pay the full premiums, but the subsidies covered 65 percent of that cost.
Ms. Rasor receives $1,400 in unemployment insurance, which means the new premiums will leave her with just $300 at the end of each month — cutting into her ability to help her husband pay the mortgage and her daughter’s tuition.
A new report by Families USA, http://www.familiesusa.org/ a health advocacy group based in Washington, has found that the average Cobra premium varies widely from state to state — and in nine states is actually higher than the average unemployment insurance check.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, predicted that most people who lost their subsidies on Monday would not be able to pay the full cost of their premiums and would drop their coverage altogether.
He said that the broader health care legislation in Congress would help by establishing new insurance marketplaces with tax credits — but they would not be set up for several years, leaving millions of people stranded in the interim.
Some Democrats have introduced legislation outside of the health care bills to extend the Cobra subsidies a few months and even increase them. The subject may come up as part of a new jobs bill in the near future, but nothing has been approved so far.
Ms. Rasor has stitched together some consulting work, but it carries no health benefits and the local jobs landscape is bleak.
“I’m in Michigan,” she said. “Need I say more?” The state’s unemployment rate is 15 percent, the highest in the nation.
Ms. Rasor said she would pay the full Cobra premium for now because she could not find the same coverage for less, and she is afraid that she would be turned down by a new insurer because she just had a knee cap replacement, which would be considered a pre-existing condition.
But she will have to find an alternative sometime next year anyway, because eligibility for Cobra lasts only 18 months.
She has given herself until the end of December to find work, she said, then she and her husband will start looking out of state.
“I feel like I’m part of the Grapes of Wrath,” she said. “I’ve got to leave home to find a job.”
Monday, November 30, 2009
Now that DEREK MAY is Leaving the St. Augustine WRecKord, Morris Needs to Re-Hire Cartoonist Ed Hall, Wrongfully Fired for Cartoon on School Budgets
It was an outrage then and it's an outrage now. Now that 41-year old publisher DEREK MAY is leaving the St. Augustine WRecKord, the paper needs to reinstate longtime political cartoonist Ed Hall, wrongfully fired last year after pressure brought on the Morris Communications by our local School Superintendent (JOSPEH JOYNER) and self-appointed arts maven (PHIL McDANIEL).
Injustice against one is injustice against everyone -- Hall's cartoon was of a generic bloated Florida school superintendent. Hall made people think. Advertising-minded DEREK MAY didn't get it.
Under new management, Ed Hall needs to return as a political cartoonist.
Injustice against one is injustice against everyone -- Hall's cartoon was of a generic bloated Florida school superintendent. Hall made people think. Advertising-minded DEREK MAY didn't get it.
Under new management, Ed Hall needs to return as a political cartoonist.
PR Newswire: St. Augustine WRecKOrd Publisher Derek May Promoted (or was it kicked upstairs)? Will be working on advertising, not journalism, @ GA HQ
Derek May Named Assistant to the President, Morris Communications Company
AUGUSTA, Ga., Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Derek May has been named assistant to the president of Morris Communications Company, LLC. His appointment to the newly-created position is effective Jan. 4, 2010.
"Derek has been part of the Morris Communications family for more than two decades, and he brings broad-ranging experience to this new position," said William S. Morris IV, President. "We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with him in this new capacity."
A native Augustan and graduate of Augusta State University, he began his career at Morris in 1988, working in information technology at the corporate headquarters. He has held positions with The Augusta Chronicle and the Lubbock (Texas) Avalanche-Journal, served as director of sales and marketing at the Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald, and was named publisher of The St. Augustine (Fla.) Record in 2006. In his new role, Mr. May will work with all Morris business entities, with special emphasis on advertising. He will be based in Augusta.
"I am thrilled to have this opportunity to work with the entire Morris family of businesses in this capacity. I'm also excited to move back to my family's hometown," said Mr. May.
"Derek May is a bright young man who has applied his skills and energy to all the tasks we have asked him to undertake, and he has handled them with distinction. He has developed a broad base of newspaper experience which will serve him well in his new role at the corporate level," said William S. Morris III, Chairman and CEO.
Morris Communications Company, LLC is a privately held media company with diversified holdings that include visitor guide publishing, outdoor advertising, magazine publishing, radio broadcasting, book publishing and distribution and online services.
Morris Publishing Group, LLC, Morris Communications' affiliate, is a privately held media company based in Augusta, Ga. Morris Publishing currently owns and operates 13 daily newspapers as well as nondaily newspapers, city magazines and free community publications in the Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and Alaska.
For more information, visit Morris' Web site, morris.com.
SOURCE Morris Communications Company, LLC
Witness for the people -- Stetson Kennedy's work earns him a spot in new film
By KATI BEXLEY
Stetson Kennedy, 93, has made countless historical contributions, all to improve human rights.
In his latest project, Kennedy is being honored for "holding up a mirror to America," something he says he has tried to do throughout his entire life.
He is part of a film and exhibit shown on the Smithsonian channel and touring 30 libraries throughout the country. So far, the only library in Florida scheduled to have the film and exhibit is the Broward County Library. Kennedy would like to see more libraries display it.
The exhibit, called "Soul of a People," tells of the 1937 Federal Writers Project that fell under the Works Progress Administration, created by President Franklin Roosevelt. The project sent numerous writers and photographers across the nation to produce a portrait of the United States for travel guides, according to the Smithsonian.
But Kennedy, a leader on the project, had something else in mind.
"They wanted bathing beauties and palm trees," he said Sunday. "We wanted to show the warts, like the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and Jim Crow laws."
Kennedy was only 21, but he was put in charge of the project's folklore, oral history and ethnic studies. He landed the job by sending in old sayings to the Library of Congress' director of folklore that he had collected from rural white and black families in St. Johns County.
He gathered the stories while working for his father who owned a furniture business that allowed poor families to purchase items by paying a dollar at a time.
"My job was to collect the dollar," Kennedy said. "I began to take down a list of old sayings from the people that I went to see."
Kennedy oversaw famous writers such as Zora Neale Hurston, with whom he traveled throughout Florida.
The "Soul of a People" project is touting Kennedy as one of its main focuses. Stetson said the reason why he was more successful than other directors in the Federal Writers Project is because he sent African-American writers to interview African-Americans.
"Others sent out white men and they weren't going to tell them the truth," Kennedy said. "I used the idea of black on black. It paid off."
Stetson said they interviewed some African-Americans in their 80s and even a few more than 100 years old who were former slaves.
"We'd run into characters," he said. "They all mostly said, 'I always had to work hard just to live.' I know there's a lot of people who can still say that."
And that's what keeps Kennedy going at 93. Last week he was seen protesting with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers outside Publix at Cobblestone Village. The coalition has been touring the state for the past few months to protest the food chain for, coalition members say, contributing to poor working conditions in tomato fields by continuing to buy from suppliers who pay unfair wages. The coalition says these wages amount to -- what they called "modern-day slavery."
Kennedy has written several award-winning books, but he also has a dozen manuscripts in the works.
His wife Sandra Parks said, "As long as he's got a book in mind and is adored he's not going anywhere."
Kennedy said he's happy to see the Federal Writers Project getting recognition.
"There aren't too many of us left who worked on the project," he said. "A good many people are paying attention to it and here it is three-quarters of a century after it ended."
*
'SOUL OF A PEOPLE'
* Stetson Kennedy is being featured in a film and exhibit called "Soul of a People."
* It tells of the 1937 Federal Writers Project that fell under the Works Progress Administration, created by President Franklin Roosevelt.
* The film has aired on the Smithsonian channel and will travel to 30 libraries throughout the nation, including The Broward County Library in Fort Lauderdale.
Stetson Kennedy, 93, has made countless historical contributions, all to improve human rights.
In his latest project, Kennedy is being honored for "holding up a mirror to America," something he says he has tried to do throughout his entire life.
He is part of a film and exhibit shown on the Smithsonian channel and touring 30 libraries throughout the country. So far, the only library in Florida scheduled to have the film and exhibit is the Broward County Library. Kennedy would like to see more libraries display it.
The exhibit, called "Soul of a People," tells of the 1937 Federal Writers Project that fell under the Works Progress Administration, created by President Franklin Roosevelt. The project sent numerous writers and photographers across the nation to produce a portrait of the United States for travel guides, according to the Smithsonian.
But Kennedy, a leader on the project, had something else in mind.
"They wanted bathing beauties and palm trees," he said Sunday. "We wanted to show the warts, like the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and Jim Crow laws."
Kennedy was only 21, but he was put in charge of the project's folklore, oral history and ethnic studies. He landed the job by sending in old sayings to the Library of Congress' director of folklore that he had collected from rural white and black families in St. Johns County.
He gathered the stories while working for his father who owned a furniture business that allowed poor families to purchase items by paying a dollar at a time.
"My job was to collect the dollar," Kennedy said. "I began to take down a list of old sayings from the people that I went to see."
Kennedy oversaw famous writers such as Zora Neale Hurston, with whom he traveled throughout Florida.
The "Soul of a People" project is touting Kennedy as one of its main focuses. Stetson said the reason why he was more successful than other directors in the Federal Writers Project is because he sent African-American writers to interview African-Americans.
"Others sent out white men and they weren't going to tell them the truth," Kennedy said. "I used the idea of black on black. It paid off."
Stetson said they interviewed some African-Americans in their 80s and even a few more than 100 years old who were former slaves.
"We'd run into characters," he said. "They all mostly said, 'I always had to work hard just to live.' I know there's a lot of people who can still say that."
And that's what keeps Kennedy going at 93. Last week he was seen protesting with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers outside Publix at Cobblestone Village. The coalition has been touring the state for the past few months to protest the food chain for, coalition members say, contributing to poor working conditions in tomato fields by continuing to buy from suppliers who pay unfair wages. The coalition says these wages amount to -- what they called "modern-day slavery."
Kennedy has written several award-winning books, but he also has a dozen manuscripts in the works.
His wife Sandra Parks said, "As long as he's got a book in mind and is adored he's not going anywhere."
Kennedy said he's happy to see the Federal Writers Project getting recognition.
"There aren't too many of us left who worked on the project," he said. "A good many people are paying attention to it and here it is three-quarters of a century after it ended."
*
'SOUL OF A PEOPLE'
* Stetson Kennedy is being featured in a film and exhibit called "Soul of a People."
* It tells of the 1937 Federal Writers Project that fell under the Works Progress Administration, created by President Franklin Roosevelt.
* The film has aired on the Smithsonian channel and will travel to 30 libraries throughout the nation, including The Broward County Library in Fort Lauderdale.
Washington Post: House expenses go online
House expenses go online
By Ben Pershing
Forty-five years after Congress first began publishing its expenditures, the House took another step into the modern age Monday by putting those numbers somewhere the public can actually find them -- the Internet.
After years of lobbying by watchdog groups and other critics, the House has finally begun posting electronic copies of its Statement of Disbursements, a detailed accounting of how every House office -- including those of members, committees and support organizations -- spends its money. The numbers include everything from staff salaries to expenses for mundane office items such as water and magazine subscriptions.
Only one volume is online so far at disbursements.house.gov, covering July 1 through Sept. 30. At close to 3,400 pages, the document is available in one massive (9.4 MB) PDF file or three smaller ones. Unwieldy as the electronic files might be, they still represent a stark change from the old (and still available) version of the disbursements, which came only in thick, expensive books full of tiny type.
The House has been publishing its disbursements since 1964, but only this past June did Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) finally order the chamber's Chief Administrative Officer to begin posting them online. In a statement issued by her office Monday, Pelosi said, "The continued publication of these statements online will expand accountability to taxpayers and the press."
The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit watchdog group, said on its blog that the posting Monday showed "a proactive stance from the US House" but is "just a first step." The foundation and other groups hope eventually for the data to be released more quickly and in a format easier to search and digest than a giant PDF.
LegiStorm, a private Web site, already publishes some congressional expenditures online, allowing users to look at salary data for Hill staffers. But the site does not publish the complete Statement of Disbursements in one file, as the House now does.
The Senate is also working toward putting its expenses online, though that effort is not expected to bear fruit until 2011.
By Ben Pershing | November 30, 2009; 2:42 PM ET
By Ben Pershing
Forty-five years after Congress first began publishing its expenditures, the House took another step into the modern age Monday by putting those numbers somewhere the public can actually find them -- the Internet.
After years of lobbying by watchdog groups and other critics, the House has finally begun posting electronic copies of its Statement of Disbursements, a detailed accounting of how every House office -- including those of members, committees and support organizations -- spends its money. The numbers include everything from staff salaries to expenses for mundane office items such as water and magazine subscriptions.
Only one volume is online so far at disbursements.house.gov, covering July 1 through Sept. 30. At close to 3,400 pages, the document is available in one massive (9.4 MB) PDF file or three smaller ones. Unwieldy as the electronic files might be, they still represent a stark change from the old (and still available) version of the disbursements, which came only in thick, expensive books full of tiny type.
The House has been publishing its disbursements since 1964, but only this past June did Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) finally order the chamber's Chief Administrative Officer to begin posting them online. In a statement issued by her office Monday, Pelosi said, "The continued publication of these statements online will expand accountability to taxpayers and the press."
The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit watchdog group, said on its blog that the posting Monday showed "a proactive stance from the US House" but is "just a first step." The foundation and other groups hope eventually for the data to be released more quickly and in a format easier to search and digest than a giant PDF.
LegiStorm, a private Web site, already publishes some congressional expenditures online, allowing users to look at salary data for Hill staffers. But the site does not publish the complete Statement of Disbursements in one file, as the House now does.
The Senate is also working toward putting its expenses online, though that effort is not expected to bear fruit until 2011.
By Ben Pershing | November 30, 2009; 2:42 PM ET
Million Dollar Congressman JOHN MICA has already raised more than $200,000 in PAC contributions
Source: Friends COmmittee on National Legislzation
Representative John L. Mica (R-FL 7th)
Political Action Committee Contributions: 2009-2010 Campaign Cycle
Total 2009-2010 campaign contributions: $200,250
Sort by: Total Amount | Contributor
Contributor Total
3M COMPANY PAC $1000
ABX AIR INC. PAC $1000
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC $2500
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $4500
AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AIRPORT PAC) $1000
AMERICAN AIRLINES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES $3500
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC) $-1500
AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION-BUSPAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC $1000
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC) $2000
AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000
AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS RETIREES ASSOCIATION VOLUNTARY POLITICAL ACTION FUND $1000
AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS VOLUNTARY POLITICAL ACTION FUND $3500
AMERICAN MOVING AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMPAC) $1000
AMERICAN ROAD & TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION PAC $4000
AMERICAN SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS GROUP INC FREEDOM PAC/ASL FREEDOM PAC $1000
AMERICAN SHIPPING GROUP MARINE RESOURCES GROUP $1000
AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC $1000
AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS-PAC $1000
APL LIMITED PAC $2500
ARCADIS U.S., INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ARCADIS PAC) $2000
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, PAC $1000
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1500
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
ASSOCIATION OF AIR MEDICAL SERVICES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
AT&T INC. FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AT&T FEDERAL PAC) $1000
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC PAC $1000
BALCH AND BINGHAM LLP FEDERAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE $1000
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION FEDERAL PAC $1000
BIKES BELONG COALITION, LTD. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2500
BLANK ROME PAC $1000
BOEING COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, THE $3000
BURSON-MARSTELLER/YOUNG & RUBICAM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
CEMEX INC. EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
CHEVRON EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - CHEVRON CORPORATION $1000
COMCAST CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE- FEDERAL $1000
CROPLIFE AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
CUBIC CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2500
DISTRICT NO. 1-PCD MEBA POLITICAL FUND (MEBA-PAF) $2500
DLA PIPER LLP (US) POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DLA PIPER PAC) $750
DMJM HARRIS PAC $3500
EMPLOYEES OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION PAC $1000
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC) $1000
FEDEXPAC FEDERAL EXPRESS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $4000
FERT PAC (THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE) $2000
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE PAC $1000
FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION INC FEDERAL PAC $5000
FLUOR CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (FLUOR PAC) $1000
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L L P FEDERAL COMMITTEE $1000
GENERAL ATOMICS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
GENERAL DYNAMICS VOLUNTARY POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION PLAN (GDVPCP) $1000
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GEPAC) $2000
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC. EMPLOYEE PAC - GRANITEPAC $1500
HARRIS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000
HERZOG CONTRACTING CORP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
HNTB HOLDINGS LTD. PAC $1000
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000
HORIZON LINES LLC ASSOCIATES GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND/HORIZON LINES ASSOCIATES GOOD GOVT FUND $1000
INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (IMEPAC) $2000
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTERS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ICSC PAC) $2500
INTERNATIONAL PAPER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
JACOBS GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. $5000
K&L GATES LLP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DC) $1000
KING & SPALDING NONPARTISAN COMMITTEE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT $1000
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KRAFTPAC) $1000
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $6000
MAERSK INC. GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND $2500
MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION FUND $2500
NAIOP-PAC $1500
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION AG-AV PAC $1000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS RESPONSIBLE DISTRIBUTION POLITICAL ACTION CO $1000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NAWC - PAC) $1000
NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2500
NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NCBA-PAC) $2500
NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSN. PAC (CONCRETEPAC) $1000
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND $1000
NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION $1000
NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION ROCKPAC $3000
NATIONAL UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION AND ACTION COMMITTEE $1500
NATSO INC. NATSO PAC $1000
NCR CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NCRPAC) $500
NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH FEDERAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE $1000
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND $5000
OLDCASTLE MATERIALS INC. PAC $3000
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS HOLDINGS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
PARSONS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION INC. PCA PAC $1000
PROGRESS ENERGY EMPLOYEES' FEDERAL PAC $1000
R.J. REYNOLDS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE; REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC. $1000
RAILAMERICA INC FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
RAYTHEON COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTTEE $5000
RIO TINTO AMERICA INC. PAC $500
ROCKWELL COLLINS INC. GOOD GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE $1000
ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC. PAC (ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA PAC) $1000
SAFETY-KLEEN INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
SEAFARERS POLITICAL ACTIVITY DONATION-SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A.-AGLIWD/NMU $1000
SIEMENS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2000
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE(SONNENSCHEIN PAC) $1000
SRA INTERNATIONAL INC FUND FOR BETTER IT IN GOVERNMENT $1000
TAXICAB LIMOUSINE $2000
TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION'S TIAPAC $1000
TRAVELPORT INC. PAC $1000
TRUCKING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. $1000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. PAC $5000
UNITED PILOTS PAC/AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION $2500
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (UTU PAC) $5000
VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1500
WEXLER & WALKER PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATES PAC (A UNIT OF HILL & KNOWLTON) $1000
WINSTEAD PC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
Representative John L. Mica (R-FL 7th)
Political Action Committee Contributions: 2009-2010 Campaign Cycle
Total 2009-2010 campaign contributions: $200,250
Sort by: Total Amount | Contributor
Contributor Total
3M COMPANY PAC $1000
ABX AIR INC. PAC $1000
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC $2500
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $4500
AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AIRPORT PAC) $1000
AMERICAN AIRLINES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES $3500
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC) $-1500
AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION-BUSPAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC $1000
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC) $2000
AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000
AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS RETIREES ASSOCIATION VOLUNTARY POLITICAL ACTION FUND $1000
AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS VOLUNTARY POLITICAL ACTION FUND $3500
AMERICAN MOVING AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMPAC) $1000
AMERICAN ROAD & TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION PAC $4000
AMERICAN SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS GROUP INC FREEDOM PAC/ASL FREEDOM PAC $1000
AMERICAN SHIPPING GROUP MARINE RESOURCES GROUP $1000
AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC $1000
AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS-PAC $1000
APL LIMITED PAC $2500
ARCADIS U.S., INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ARCADIS PAC) $2000
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, PAC $1000
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1500
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
ASSOCIATION OF AIR MEDICAL SERVICES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
AT&T INC. FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AT&T FEDERAL PAC) $1000
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC PAC $1000
BALCH AND BINGHAM LLP FEDERAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE $1000
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION FEDERAL PAC $1000
BIKES BELONG COALITION, LTD. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2500
BLANK ROME PAC $1000
BOEING COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, THE $3000
BURSON-MARSTELLER/YOUNG & RUBICAM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
CEMEX INC. EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
CHEVRON EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - CHEVRON CORPORATION $1000
COMCAST CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE- FEDERAL $1000
CROPLIFE AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
CUBIC CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2500
DISTRICT NO. 1-PCD MEBA POLITICAL FUND (MEBA-PAF) $2500
DLA PIPER LLP (US) POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DLA PIPER PAC) $750
DMJM HARRIS PAC $3500
EMPLOYEES OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION PAC $1000
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC) $1000
FEDEXPAC FEDERAL EXPRESS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $4000
FERT PAC (THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE) $2000
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE PAC $1000
FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION INC FEDERAL PAC $5000
FLUOR CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (FLUOR PAC) $1000
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L L P FEDERAL COMMITTEE $1000
GENERAL ATOMICS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
GENERAL DYNAMICS VOLUNTARY POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION PLAN (GDVPCP) $1000
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GEPAC) $2000
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC. EMPLOYEE PAC - GRANITEPAC $1500
HARRIS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000
HERZOG CONTRACTING CORP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
HNTB HOLDINGS LTD. PAC $1000
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000
HORIZON LINES LLC ASSOCIATES GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND/HORIZON LINES ASSOCIATES GOOD GOVT FUND $1000
INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (IMEPAC) $2000
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTERS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ICSC PAC) $2500
INTERNATIONAL PAPER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
JACOBS GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. $5000
K&L GATES LLP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DC) $1000
KING & SPALDING NONPARTISAN COMMITTEE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT $1000
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KRAFTPAC) $1000
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $6000
MAERSK INC. GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND $2500
MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION FUND $2500
NAIOP-PAC $1500
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION AG-AV PAC $1000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS RESPONSIBLE DISTRIBUTION POLITICAL ACTION CO $1000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NAWC - PAC) $1000
NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2500
NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NCBA-PAC) $2500
NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSN. PAC (CONCRETEPAC) $1000
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND $1000
NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION $1000
NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION ROCKPAC $3000
NATIONAL UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION AND ACTION COMMITTEE $1500
NATSO INC. NATSO PAC $1000
NCR CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NCRPAC) $500
NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH FEDERAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE $1000
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND $5000
OLDCASTLE MATERIALS INC. PAC $3000
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS HOLDINGS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
PARSONS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION INC. PCA PAC $1000
PROGRESS ENERGY EMPLOYEES' FEDERAL PAC $1000
R.J. REYNOLDS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE; REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC. $1000
RAILAMERICA INC FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $500
RAYTHEON COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTTEE $5000
RIO TINTO AMERICA INC. PAC $500
ROCKWELL COLLINS INC. GOOD GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE $1000
ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC. PAC (ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA PAC) $1000
SAFETY-KLEEN INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
SEAFARERS POLITICAL ACTIVITY DONATION-SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A.-AGLIWD/NMU $1000
SIEMENS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2000
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE(SONNENSCHEIN PAC) $1000
SRA INTERNATIONAL INC FUND FOR BETTER IT IN GOVERNMENT $1000
TAXICAB LIMOUSINE $2000
TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION'S TIAPAC $1000
TRAVELPORT INC. PAC $1000
TRUCKING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. $1000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. PAC $5000
UNITED PILOTS PAC/AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION $2500
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (UTU PAC) $5000
VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1500
WEXLER & WALKER PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATES PAC (A UNIT OF HILL & KNOWLTON) $1000
WINSTEAD PC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1000
Million Dollar Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA Spends $63,224/year on rent for district offices
Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA has small offices in five counties in our District. He spends $63,224/year on them for rent alone (more for phone and utilities).
Who are MICA's lucky no-bid landlords?
EQUITY HOLDING CORP. OF FLAGLER $4200/year Registered agent is MICA contributor.
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEMORIAL $6600/year
JOHNS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD $9600/year St. Augustine office
LARRY KENT $1920/year
POINT 100 BUILDING LP $23,904/year Tri-Cor International HQ, Maitland
Why won't Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA rent space in federal government buildings from the Post Office, the National Guard, the Social Security Administration or other federal agencies?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Who are MICA's lucky no-bid landlords?
EQUITY HOLDING CORP. OF FLAGLER $4200/year Registered agent is MICA contributor.
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEMORIAL $6600/year
JOHNS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD $9600/year St. Augustine office
LARRY KENT $1920/year
POINT 100 BUILDING LP $23,904/year Tri-Cor International HQ, Maitland
Why won't Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA rent space in federal government buildings from the Post Office, the National Guard, the Social Security Administration or other federal agencies?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Aviation Today: FAA Reports Lithium Battery Fire Could Burn Through Cargo Hold on Airplanes
Monday, July 26, 2004
Lithium Battery Fire Could Burn Through a Cargo Hold
Halon extinguishing agent has no effect on fire intensity
Lithium batteries may represent the ultimate hazardous material, especially when shipped in bulk as cargo, with the potential to breach all defenses should they catch fire. That is the principal finding of a June report of lithium battery fire tests conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Technical Center at Atlantic City, N.J.
The extreme hazard portrayed in the report suggests that it may be time to consider restricting lithium battery shipments to cargo aircraft. Presently, lithium battery shipments require prominent labeling as hazardous cargo, and, after Jan. 1, 2005, the batteries must undergo a "battery" of tests in order to be approved for shipment. However, those tests - for altitude, vibration, shock, etc. - do not include a test for fire resistance. In a shipment of closely packed lithium batteries, should one battery catch fire, a chain reaction results. The fire spreads from battery to battery in an explosive conflagration of molten lithium, according to the Technical Center report.
The examination of lithium battery fires was undertaken after a pallet of such batteries caught fire on the ground at Los Angeles International Airport in April 1999. The pallet was inadvertently dropped onto the tarmac, and a battery fire resulted, despite there being no external ignition source. There are no confirmed reports of bulk lithium battery fires in the air, but that is precisely the reason the FAA Tech Center undertook its examination of this more dangerous scenario. There is one case where a lithium battery fire may have played a role in the crash of a transport category airplane. In November 1987 a South African Airways B747 combi (a hybrid freighter with a partition separating cargo from passengers on the main deck), with 159 passengers aboard and cargo which included a consignment of lithium watch batteries, disappeared into the Indian Ocean off Mauritius.
After a wreck survey by robot cameras and limited debris recovery, investigators determined that the lithium batteries were located in the same area that was established to have been the seat of the fire. The airplane also was carrying a cargo of ammonium perchlorate, a rocket propellant known to be unstable and capable of spontaneous ignition. As a propellant with its own oxygen, ammonium perchlorate would have rapidly promoted a fire. However, in revealing testimony to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the presence of the lithium battery shipment was mentioned, and is pertinent to what has been revealed by the FAA lithium fire tests about battery venting, explosions, and accelerated self-reactive fires. The testimony obviously was dealing with the batteries' packaging material, but the general description of the fire that doomed the plane reinforces the point that lithium batteries can be extremely dangerous if they catch fire.
Using a steel test chamber to simulate an aircraft cargo hold, the FAA tests show that a runaway fire involving a shipment of lithium batteries might well result in loss of the aircraft. The batteries involved were those used commonly in consumer electronic products (e.g., video cameras).
Batteries were tested singly, and in groups of 32, 64 and 128. Tests also involved groups of batteries packed in rows inside cardboard boxes.
For test purposes, the battery fires were started by igniting a "fire pan" filled with alcohol. The findings were fearful. To summarize:
- A relatively small fire source was sufficient to start a lithium battery fire.
- The heat from a single battery afire was sufficient to ignite adjacent batteries.
- The outer plastic coating on the batteries easily melted, fusing the batteries together, adding to the intensity of the fire.
- The chain reaction ignition continued until all batteries were consumed.
- The molten lithium burned explosively, spraying white-hot lithium to a radius of several feet as the batteries bounced around.
- The duration of the peak temperature increased with the number of batteries, reaching as high as 1,400� F (as a matter of interest, the melting temperature of aluminum is around 1,200� F).
- The cardboard packing proved highly flammable. The packing delayed battery ignition by about 30-60 seconds, but once ignited, the fire among the close-packed batteries was worse.
- While thick-wall cargo liners were able to contain the fire (barely), thin-walled fire liners proved ineffective. The battery fire ignited the resin in the liner, and the liner was completely penetrated by molten lithium.
- Halon fire-suppressing agent, injected in sufficient concentration to "knock down" a fire, proved totally ineffective, even when injected after just the first battery had caught fire. Nor did it have any effect on the peak temperature. The fire continued as if Halon were not present.
- Lithium batteries catch fire with explosive force. When they burst, they create a pressure pulse. The eight-battery test produced a pressure pulse of 1.8 psi, and the 16- battery test generated a 2.6 psi pulse.
According to the Tech Center report:
"These results are significant. The cargo compartment is only constructed to withstand a 1-psi pressure differential in order to rapidly equalize the pressure in the event of a depressurization. Anything over 1 psi would activate the blowout panels, compromising the cargo compartment's [fire-resistant] integrity."
The effect is the same as perforating the cargo liner.
- A cargo bay fire from a totally unrelated source can cause a shipment of lithium batteries to ignite. Tech Center investigators found that the temperatures found in a suppressed smoldering cargo fire are sufficient to ignite a lithium battery.
Add one other factor - the butane used as propellant in personal care products packed into passengers' bags - and put it all together: A cargo fire of unknown origin starts and ignites a shipment of lithium batteries. With a cargo bay fire warning in the cockpit, the pilots discharge Halon, with no effect. The molten fireworks of lithium burns through the cargo liner, and penetrates the aluminum skin of the cargo bay. The holes allow for an inrush of air, adding oxygen to the fire. The exploding batteries create sufficient overpressure to punch out the blowout panels - allowing for more inrush of oxygen and spread of the fire outside the hold. The heat rise is sufficient to cause aerosol cans of shaving cream, hairspray, etc., to burst. Earlier tests have demonstrated that a single such can, placed in a bag located near the ceiling, can explode with sufficient force to distort and heave up the cabin floor.
Although they must be marked as hazardous cargo, there presently is no limit on the number of lithium batteries that can be shipped on a commercial aircraft.
There are two obvious implications of this scenario. First, ETOPS (extended range operations) is based on the presumption that a belly-hold fire can be suppressed by Halon for three hours. It does not account for the catastrophic progression of a pallet of lithium batteries catching fire. Such a fire would easily burn its way through current defenses.
The danger is such that a terrorist would not need to use explosives that could be detected in his checked or hand luggage by an explosives detection system (EDS). A lithium fire would create havoc enough. This scenario supports the need, as a minimum, for positive passenger bag-match (PPBM) for domestic flights as well as the current requirement for international flights (see ASW, Nov. 12, 2001).
There is one bit of final irony to this tale: the smoke detector units of some aircraft fire detection systems are powered by lithium batteries.
(The full report, "Flammability Assessment of Bulk-Packed, Nonrechargeable Lithium Primary Batteries in Transport Category Aircraft," Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-04/26, may be viewed at http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/04-26.pdf. The UK Civil Aviation Authority produced a report in July 2003 in which Halon was found effective for suppression of single-battery lithium fires, although in these cases the batteries were contained in their electronic devices. For this report, see http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=985)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)