1. The Violence Against Women Act (version 7, scroll to Title IV) expires on September 30.

VAWA helps the survivors of domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault rebuild their lives.

Victims of domestic violence face tremendous obstacles when they attempt to flee abusive relationships. Their situation is often exacerbated when the abusive partner controls the family finances, owns the home, and in the case of immigrant women, retains the documentation of the immigration status of the family. This legislation provides legal assistance, enhances victims’ privacy rights, and works to eliminate bias against women among judges, prosecutors and the police.

VAWA saves lives and provides added opportunity to victims.

Surveys show that domestic violence is the immediate cause of homelessness for between 22 and 57 percent of homeless women, and that some women and their children lose their homes when they flee abuse. VAWA includes needed housing assistance for victims.

VAWA improves economic and job security for the victims of domestic or sexual violence.

The fear of job loss and the resulting economic instability prevents many battered women from escaping abusive relationships. VAWA would guarantee victims leave to deal with these issues, and would give them legal recourse if they are fired unfairly.

Click here to urge Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

2. Near to my immigrant heart, the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005 seeks to restore basic fairness to US immigration policy.

Since 9/11, the federal government has enacted a series of policies that change the fight against terrorism into a campaign against immigrants. Many of these policies—especially those permitting indefinite detention, limiting court review of deportation decisions and keeping immigration hearings closed to the public and media—have been put in place without Congressional approval. Fortunately, Congress is reasserting itself with the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005, which would help restore basic fairness to our immigration system. It is currently being considered in both chambers of Congress and it deserves your support. Click here to urge Congress to pass the Civil Liberties Restoration Act.

It would, for instance:

Require government officials to determine on a case-by-case basis which immigration hearings should be closed to the public or press.

Shortly after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft imposed a blanket policy on certain deportation hearings, closing them to the public and the press. But, as a federal judge said of the Ashcroft order, “democracies die behind closed doors.” This provision would close the doors to our courtrooms only when truly necessary.

Limit detentions without charge by immigration officials.

Under current law, the government can indefinitely detain immigrants without formal charges or proper court review. This law would carefully limit detentions longer than 48-hours, and require exceptions to be narrow and specific to cases involving terrorism and other extraordinary circumstances.

Prevent government attorneys from trumping a judge’s decision that a detainee should be released.

Right now, something called the “automatic stay” rule means that when a government attorney objects to a judge’s order that a particular detainee be released, that detainee must remain in custody until the government’s appeal is heard. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act would fix that.

Click here to urge Congress to pass the Civil Liberties Restoration Act.

Why, I hear you ask, is he linking to the bills? Because you can use those links to find out whether your reps are already sponsoring the legislation in question, and tailor your letters accordingly. Here, for instance, is the body of the letter I sent David Wu:

As a concerned constituent, I strongly urge you to give your full support to the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005, which I understand will be considered shortly in the House Judiciary Committee. This bill would help make our immigration laws fair again by reducing government secrecy, enhancing court review of immigration decisions and preventing unnecessary detention without charge.

I note that the congressional record (see here) does NOT list you as a co/sponsor, but you are on record as saying that "...in the process of combating international terrorism, we must neither abandon American civil liberties nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking out against those with different names, skin color or religion.” I further note that you have supported the ACLU position on civil liberties 65-80% of the time since 2000, so I am hopeful that you will agree with me on this important matter.

I urge you to support this crucial bill.

It's good to remind the buggers, now and then, that we're watching 'em.