Freed Alabama Ex-Governor Sees Politics in His Case
By Adam Nossiter
The New York Times Saturday 29 March 2008 Montgomery, Alabama – Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, released from prison today on bond in a bribery case, said he was as convinced as ever that politics played a leading role in his prosecution. In a telephone interview shortly after he walked out of a federal prison in Oakdale, La., Mr. Siegelman said there had been “abuse of power” in his case, and repeatedly cited the influence of Karl Rove, the former White House political director. “His fingerprints are smeared all over the case,” Mr. Siegelman said, a day after a federal appeals court ordered him released on bond and said there were legitimate questions about his case. Mr. Rove has strenuously denied any involvement in the conviction of the former governor, who was sentenced to serve seven years last June after being convicted in 2006. He could not immediately be reached for comment today. Mr. Siegelman served nine months while his lawyers appealed a federal judge’s refusal to release him on bond, pending the ex-governor’s appeal of his conviction. That refusal was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Thursday. The former governor, a Democrat, said he would “press” to have Mr. Rove answer questions about his possible involvement in the case before Congress, which has already held a hearing on Mr. Siegelman. On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee signaled its intention to have Mr. Siegelman testify about the nature of his prosecution. In June of 2006 he was convicted by a federal jury here of taking $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of the HealthSouth corporation, in exchange for an appointment to the state hospital licensing board. The money was to retire a debt from Mr. Siegelman’s campaign for a state lottery to pay for schools, and the ex-governor’s lawyers have insisted that it was no more than a routine political contribution. On the telephone outside the prison today, Mr. Siegelman said he had confidence that the federal appeals court, which will now consider his larger appeal, would agree with his view of the case – that he was convicted for a transaction that regularly takes place in American politics. Otherwise, Mr. Siegelman said, “every governor and every president and every contributor might as well turn themselves in, because it’s going to be open season on them.” His case has become a flash point for Democratic contentions that politics influenced decisions by the Justice Department, fueled by testimony from an Alabama campaign operative that suggested Mr. Rove may have had some involvement. In Alabama, the Siegelman case has inflamed partisan passions, with Republicans insisting that Mr. Siegelman’s term from 1998 to 2002 was deeply corrupted, and Democrats furious over what they depict as a years-long political witch-hunt. Before his release earlier in the day, the ex-governor completed his prison chores for the day – mopping a barracks area – and waited for his wife and son to pick him up for the eight-hour drive to his home in Birmingham, Ala. “It feels great to be out,” Mr. Siegelman said. “I wish I could say it was over. But we’re a long way from the end of this.” ——-
Archive for March, 2008
Ex-Alabama Governor to Be Freed on Appeal
The Associated Press Friday 28 March 2008 Montgomery, Ala. – Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is not just getting to go home after spending nine months in federal prison. He’s also getting a chance to testify before Congress about possible political influence over his prosecution. A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered Siegelman released pending the appeal of his corruption case, just hours after the House Judiciary Committee announced that it wants to hear his views when it probes claims of selective prosecution by the Justice Department. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling Thursday, said the former governor had raised “substantial questions of fact and law” in challenging his conviction. The once-popular Democrat began serving a sentence of more than seven years last June on his conviction on six bribery-related counts and one obstruction count. Siegelman, 62, has been serving the sentence at a federal prison in Oakdale, La. “It’s a sweet day. He’s an innocent man and he’s been in prison for nine months,” said Siegelman’s attorney, Vince Kilborn. Siegelman has maintained that certain Republicans targeted him after he was elected governor in 1998. The House committee has begun reviewing his case as part of a broader investigation into allegations of political meddling in federal prosecutions. The committee hopes to hear from Siegelman in May. Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, believes Siegelman “would have a lot to add to the committee’s investigation into selective prosecution,” committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said. Federal prosecutors accused Siegelman of appointing then-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to a hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman’s campaign for a statewide lottery. Scrushy, who was tried along with Siegelman, also was convicted on bribery counts and is serving a sentence of nearly seven years. The 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, has ruled that the multimillionaire Birmingham businessman is a potential flight risk, but that Siegelman is not. The court refused Thursday to reconsider an earlier ruling denying Scrushy’s request to be released on bond while his conviction is being appealed. Scrushy attorney Art Leach said he is disappointed his client will have to remain in prison for at least another six months while the case is appealed. “I am extremely disappointed, particularly after they said in the Siegelman case that there are substantial issues on appeal,” Leach said. Siegelman also was convicted of a separate obstruction of justice charge concerning $9,200 he received from a lobbyist to help with the purchase of a motorcycle. His attorneys have said it was a legitimate transaction. Kilborn said that he and other attorneys were working to have Siegelman released from the Louisiana prison as soon as they can deliver a certified copy of the court’s order to prison officials. It was not immediately clear when that would occur. U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller had refused to allow Siegelman to remain free on appeal while challenging his conviction. But the 11th Circuit said Thursday he met the legal standard to be freed in the “complex and protracted” case. Chief prosecutor Louis Franklin said he was “very disappointed” by the ruling, but still expects the appellate court will rule against Siegelman’s appeal. “I don’t view this as a setback. The order is very short and concise and only deals with whether he is entitled to bond pending appeal,” Franklin said. The appeals process had been delayed for months after the court reporter during the trial died and the transcript was not completed as it normally would have. ——-
Go to Original Supreme Court Rules Bush Exceeded His Powers
By David G. Savage
The Los Angeles Times Wednesday 26 March 2008 Saying he does not have “unilateral authority” to force states to comply with an international treaty, justices vote 6-3 to reject presidential order to reopen cases of foreign nationals. Washington – The Supreme Court rebuffed President Bush on Tuesday for exceeding his powers under the law, ruling he does not have the “unilateral authority” to force state officials to comply with an international treaty. The Constitution gives the president the power “to execute the laws, not make them,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Unless Congress passes a law to enforce a treaty, the president usually cannot do it on his own, he said. The 6-3 decision was a rare defeat for Bush in the courts, and it came in an unusual case that combined international law, foreign treaties and the fate of foreign nationals condemned to die in Texas, California and several other states. In a surprise move three years ago, Bush intervened on the side of the Mexican government and said Texas prosecutors should reopen the cases of Jose Medellin, a Houston murderer, and several others serving death sentences. Bush cited the Vienna Convention, which obliges signing countries to notify each other when one of their citizens is arrested and charged with a serious crime. Mexico said American prosecutors failed repeatedly to give notice when Mexican natives were charged with capital crimes. In rejecting Bush’s order Tuesday, the high court, led by its conservatives, took the opportunity to make a strong statement on the limits of presidential power. Roberts cited the “first principles” of America’s Constitution. “The president’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Roberts said. “[G]iven the absence of congressional legislation . . . the non-self- executing treaties at issue here did not expressly or impliedly vest the president with the unilateral authority to make them self-executing. “It should not be surprising,” Roberts added, “that our Constitution does not contemplate vesting such power in the Executive alone.” The decision upholds Texas prosecutors and judges who refused to reopen the cases of the Mexican nationals on death row there. By implication, it also blocks a challenge on behalf of several dozen Mexican natives who are serving death sentences in California. The three dissenters, led by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, took the view that treaties are part of American law once they are ratified by the Senate. At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the decision was a defeat, but on a narrow issue. “We’re disappointed with the decision, but we’re going to accept it, and we’re going to be reviewing it in regards to the impacts that it may have,” she said. Since 2001, Bush has claimed the power to run the war on terrorism without interference from Congress or the courts. He and his White House lawyers have said his powers as commander in chief of the armed forces allow him to act unilaterally to protect the nation’s security. Citing this authority, he ordered the military to imprison “enemy combatants” without charges or hearings, and he told the National Security Agency to intercept international phone calls from suspected terrorists without seeking judicial warrants. He also has claimed the power to order harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists without oversight from Congress or the courts. Civil libertarians have gone to court repeatedly to challenge Bush’s actions, but they have won few clear victories. Four years ago, the high court said war did not give the president a “blank check,” but the justices stopped well short of forcing major changes at the military’s prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another challenge to that prison is pending before the court. Pepperdine law professor Douglas W. Kmiec said Tuesday’s opinion in Medellin vs. Texas may be “an epitaph for an administration that has sought to deploy all sorts of means of embellishing presidential authority.” Bush’s order was “clearly an executive overreach,” said Kmiec, a former Reagan administration lawyer, and he called Roberts’ opinion “a strong reaffirmation of the role of Congress in treaty making.” But liberal advocates faulted the court for undercutting an international treaty. “The most disturbing aspect of this case is that Chief Justice Roberts is signaling that the United States can simply ignore its obligations under international treaties,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. “It’s a ruling that will further erode our standing in the world.” Donald Donovan, a New York lawyer who represented Medellin, said the court should have stood behind Bush’s effort to enforce U.S. legal commitments. “Having given its word, the United States should have kept its word,” he said. Mexico does not have the death penalty, and its officials said they could supply lawyers for those who were charged with capital crimes in the United States. When Mexico sued over the issue, the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled in 2004 that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention. Its ruling named 51 Mexican nationals. It was unclear how that ruling could be enforced. Bush, a former Texas governor, told Texas officials that they had to abide by the ruling of the International Court. He said he did so “pursuant to the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Texas prosecutors balked and decided to fight Bush in court. In Tuesday’s opinion, Roberts concluded first that the Vienna Convention is not “binding federal law,” since Congress had not passed a law to enforce it. And in such cases, the president had no authority to force state or local officials to comply with the treaty or the ruling of the International Court. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts’ opinion. And Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the result, saying the treaty at issue did not have the force of law in this country.
I sent each of the following Representatives at the Texas House of Representatives these suggestions after calling them and informing them the hearings were being held next Wednesday: Chairman SC on Regulatory Agencies (of Appropriations) Fred Brown, Vice Chair Jose Menendez, Committee Member Representatives Drew Darby, Eddie Lucio, Larry Taylor; visitors Representatives Debbie Riddle and Carl Isett. I was unable to contact Representative Van Arsdale’s office so I will postpone sending him a copy. I sent copies to my own Representative Geanie Morrison and my own Senator Glenn Hegar.
Please contact your Texas representative and Texas senator. Encourage them to send a staff person to the hearings or to attend themselves. To find out who your representative is google [texas house of representatives] and go to the House website.
Dear Representative Brown.
I have recommendations for process changes that will improve effectiveness of this medical board while enabling it to better fulfill its mission of protecting the health of Texans.
1. Give every doctor licensed in Texas, formerly licensed in Texas, or waiting for a Texas license an email address of this format: firstname.lastname. degree.DOB@ tmb.state. tx.us
For me this would be shirley.pigott. md.1948@tmb. state.tx. us
Begin offering doctors the option of using this email address to communicate with the board. Let doctors claim up to 5 hours of CME (Continuing Medical Education) of the 50 required per year to help other doctors learn how to do this when needed. Because it would cause a problem if doctors had to remember to check this email address, one of the things we would need to learn how to do would be to forward email from this address to a preferred email account.
Publicize the availability of this option through the TMB newsletter. Ask the medical professional organizations to assist in the publicity.
Give doctors annual CME credit, say 5 hours a year, for setting up this account as an incentive. I believe this would help doctors who don’t know how to use the Internet get comfortable with it.
Let doctors report CME through the Internet using this email address. That would make documentation easier for the doctor and the TMB. It would also encourage the use of the Internet for CME which opens the door for fantastic CME at low or no cost. Medical professional organizations are likely to oppose this because they make a lot of money by offering CME. In my opinion, the CME offered by these organizations is vastly inferior to CME available on the Internet.
Begin sending TMB newsletters by email when possible, especially to physicians. Decrease the size of the newsletter. It is mostly worthless anyway, in my opinion.
The TMB is likely to oppose this because increased use of the Internet will lead to changes that will make them more accountable. Because they like to abuse their power, I predict they will oppose such changes. I have suggested some of these changes to TMB members. They have ignored me, or complimented me on my ideas, but not implemented any of them.
2. Record all phone calls to the TMB “for quality control and training”. This will eliminate many abuses. It will also reveal that the TMB is usually unavailable for communication with the public. The TMB is likely to oppose this for these reasons.
3. Ensure that all informal settlement conferences are open for attendance by anyone of the physician’s choice. Require all informal settlement conferences to be recorded on video. Many abuses will be eliminated if this is done.
4. Have Homeland Security review and clear all applicants for licensing and document country of origin and whatever else is relevant to insure security.
5. Each Texas representative should have access to one hour of online training as to how the Texas Medical Board is supposed to work. All doctors should be able to access the same training and have the option to use it for one hour of CME.
6. I became interested in the Texas Medical Board and its abuses because of my own experience with sham peer review. All TMB members and Texas representatives should have access to one hour of training in sham peer review. Doctors should have access to the same training and should have the option to claim one hour of CME.
7. Texas Medical Board Watch is developing an example protocol which we want to make available to physicians who face issues with the TMB. I am testing some of the first steps now. Each doctor should be made aware that the Texas House of Representatives is interested in having a medical board which fulfills its mission, follows due process, and does not abuse its power.
The first step of our protocol will be to educate doctors on Items #1 – #6. Next we encourage doctors to write an affidavit regarding their issues. We encourage them to contact their Texas representatives and provide them with the affidavit.
I recommend that the House Committee on Public Health be invited to these hearings.
I would be happy to assist in developing the educational materials I recommend in #5 and #6. Whoever develops it, I would suggest that it be reviewed by Texas Medical Board Watch prior to implementation.
Please note that I have recommended changes in processes that will make the TMB more effective. These process changes should, I expect, improve the function of the Texas Medical Board even if the same arrogant TMB members remain in power.
There is good evidence that process changes are more effective than punitive changes for the purpose of improving productivity and decreasing wastes. There is also good evidence that improved transparency in government and listening to whistleblowers are both useful measures in decreasing fraud in government. I doubt there is any evidence that this current Texas Medical Board protects the health of Texans. Because it is retaliatory, harsh, unreasonable, capricious, and inconsistent, in my opinion, this TMB deprives Texans of good medical care, increases healthcare costs, and runs good doctors out of medical practice and out of Texas.
During the past two years the retaliation against me I have endured by this medical board has almost destroyed my medical practice. It has caused considerable hardship on me, my family, and my patients.
Please review my public disciplinary order in a recent TMB newsletter. You can find it by googling [tmb.state pigott]. I have one more frivolous complaint currently under investigation by this board and am experiencing, I believe, retaliation through the Texas Department of Public Safety because of my efforts in exposing abuse by the TMB.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
Friends of Texas Medical Board Watch, If you do not wish to receive email from TMBW, please respond with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Below is an email from a Texas physician who emailed me asking for advice. Next is my response. If government worked like it is supposed to work, MD below would not need a lawyer. I personally did not hire a lawyer until after my informal settlement conference because I knew any lawyer would tell me to be quiet and “let me do my job”. If you tell the whole world what they are doing, they will quit doing it. I think the Texas Medical Board has laid back on its attacks on me. Their modus operandi now is to have Texas Department of Public Safety and other law enforcement officers wait for me! This morning coming to work I failed to notice I had entered a school zone (speed limit 25 mph) and was going 43 mph. Immediately before the school zone the speed limit was 40 mph. Sure enough a cop was on me. Pulled me over and gave me a ticket. Since this was in daylight and there were plenty of people around, I just smiled and signed the citation. That’s a ticket I deserved and will gladly pay, but I wonder why all the other drivers who were going 40 mph were not stopped. They don’t understand that more harassment just provides more evidence. Shirley Pigott MD *****Dear MD, I would ask your representative to send a staff member to accompany you to your settlement conference. Your representative himself should contact the Texas Medical Board to let them know in advance that someone from his office will be attending. Inform them that you will be taping the conference as well. Don’t take “no” for an answer. You have this right! Who is Andy xxxxx? Call me tonight, please, at home at 361-573-0054. Call me any time. Shirley Pigott MDOn Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:24 AM, MD xxxxx wrote:
> *Re: Second Hearing on abuses of the Texas Medical Board (TMB)
> Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Austin.>
> Friends,
>
> Thanks to Steve Hotze MD for his very effective work in bringing the
> abuses of the Texas Medical Board to the open and in making the
> arrangements for these hearings by the Texas House Appropriations
> Committee, S/C on Regulatory Agencies. The last hearings on October 23,
> 2007 took eleven hours; they are available for viewing on the House
> archives at:
>
> * www.house.state. tx.us/fx/ av/committee80/ 71023a02r. ram
>
> Please write a two page statement which you will have notarized after
> you sign this attestation: I swear or affirm that this statement is
> true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
>
> When you submit this statement to me, I will forward it to the correct
> person and ask to have you scheduled to testify under oath at the
> hearings. The statement should summarize the points you wish to make.
> Please be as specific as possible so that action can be taken. Include
> your telephone numbers. You may testify again even though you have
> previously testified. The content should be different. Your testimony
> can include your progress if you are still dealing with the same issue.
>
> We have new evidence to support false anonymous complaints by Roberta
> Kalafut DO, Board President, and her husband, Ed Brandecker MD. There
> is growing evidence that one or the other of them has turned in
> complaints about any competing doctors. Texas Medical Board Watch is
> beginning to make this evidence available to various Texas
> Representatives as we call for reform. You can help us a great deal if
> you contact your own Texas Representative and Texas Senator with your
> concerns about anonymous complaints from these two physicians and the
> abuse of power it reflects.
>
> Whether or not you have any problem with the board yourself, please
> contact your own elected officials. In fact, if you are reluctant to
> discuss your personal problems because of your legitimate fear of
> retaliation, it is especially important that you contact your own
> elected officials and ask them to educate themselves about the abuses
> that continue. Please ask them to send a staff person to attend the
> hearings. They can be part of the hearing panel by contacting
> Representative Fred Brown or the House Clerk of the S/C on Regulatory
> Agencies.
>
> If you are unable to attend yourself, perhaps you can persuade a
> colleague. If you are licensed in Texas, formerly licensed in Texas, or
> waiting for your Texas license, please consider making an attestation of
> your support for a strong, but fair, Texas Medical Board.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Shirley Pigott MD
__._,_.___
Passport Backlog Put Data More in Hands of Contractors
By Glenn Kessler
The Washington Post Tuesday 25 March 2008
The contract employees who snooped into the passport files of two presidential candidates this year were part of a private workforce that has increasingly assumed responsibility for processing the sensitive documents, State Department and industry officials said yesterday.
The department began farming out the work to private firms nearly two decades ago, but the ratio of contractors to government employees exploded in the past year when passport applications suddenly began to overwhelm the State Department.
From 2001 to 2007, 40 to 45 percent of the workers handling passports were contractors, but now 60 percent of the 4,400 passport employees work for private firms, State Department officials said yesterday.
Three of those contract workers were discovered last week to have peeked at the private passport files of Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). A State Department trainee last summer also looked at the file of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). The workers are a small part of an army of contractors that has helped keep the official federal workforce flat at about 1.9 million workers for years. The number topped 7.6 million in 2005 – the most recent year for which figures are available – an increase of 2.4 million over 2002, according to Paul C. Light of New York University, who compiles the most authoritative survey of government contract employees.
Light said that about two-thirds of those contract workers are service employees – people who answer phones, input data or handle customer inquiries – who work side by side with federal employees. “They sit at the same desks but do not have the same benefits,” he said.
Stanley Inc. of Arlington, one of the State Department contractors involved, said that two subcontractor employees who snooped at Obama’s file in January and February were fired the day the firm discovered what they had done. “You can’t fire a federal employee that quickly,” Light noted.
Stanley supervisors oversaw the subcontractors; State Department officials managed the Stanley supervisors.
The State Department’s policy is that only “inherently government functions” must be handled by federal employees, a senior State Department official said. Thus the clerk who accepts a passport application, the person who scans the documents into the computer and the person who prints the book are all contractors; the people who review the documentation and approve or deny the application are federal employees, as are the overall supervisors of the scanners and printers.
For Stanley, the booming business has been highly profitable, especially since the government began requiring passports for travel to Canada and Mexico. “Passport services revenue grew 61 percent from the third quarter of last fiscal year,” Chief Financial Officer Brian J. Clark told Wall Street analysts in January, accounting for 14 percent of the company’s total revenue. Stanley recently branched out into processing visas and immigration petitions for foreigners seeking to come to the United States.
A third contract employee – who looked at Obama’s and McCain’s files – worked for the Analysis Corp. of McLean. The company does not process passports but instead staffs an after-hours operations center for State, handling queries from border crossings and overseas inquiries about passports or visas that may appear suspicious. That employee has been suspended from handling such data pending an investigation.
All three were caught because they accessed files secretly flagged as belonging to a high-profile person, triggering a notice to a supervisor. The State Department declined to disclose how many such files have been flagged, saying it would undermine the detection program.
“It is not a handful, but it’s not thousands,” said the senior official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. He added that the criteria for inclusion on the list are being reviewed.
——-
Boeing backers may target tanker pact
Lawmakers look to reverse decision
By ERIC ROSENBERG
P-I WASHINGTON BUREAUWASHINGTON — Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said Monday that Boeing Co. supporters in Congress are exploring legislative options to freeze the award of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the EADS-Northrop Grumman Corp. team.Chicago-based Boeing is appealing the Air Force decision to the Government Accountability Office, which is scheduled to render a verdict by mid-June.If Boeing’s appeal fails, “you are going to see a vigorous effort in Congress through the appropriations process or some other mechanism to revisit this whole contract,” Inslee said in an interview. “There are six to a dozen strategies we are now looking at to see the best way to do that.”George Behan, a spokesman for Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said lawmakers were mulling “several options” — including canceling funds for the tanker program. Dicks believes that “Congress reserves the right to take actions it deems warranted, including those which could reverse the contract award.” The Air Force on Feb. 29 rejected Boeing’s bid to build a new fleet of aerial tanker planes based on the company’s 767 passenger jet. The service instead selected a tanker modeled on the Airbus 330, a much larger airplane.According to Inslee, the legislative options under discussion include:· Prohibiting the award of a U.S. government contract to any company found by the U.S. government to be receiving illegal subsidies. The U.S. Trade Representative has alleged in a complaint with the World Trade Organization that EADS, the parent of plane maker Airbus, receives illegal subsidies from European governments, the effect of which has been to undercut Boeing’s prices on commercial aircraft and gain worldwide market share.· Directing the Air Force to reconsider the competing tanker proposals and “factor in the subsidies,” Inslee said in a telephone interview from India, where he and other lawmakers are traveling. · Directing the Air Force to reopen the bidding and allow Boeing to propose building a tanker based on a larger airplane. · Canceling the EADS-Northrop contract outright, the “ultimate last-case scenario” Inslee said. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of a key House panel that oversees military spending, warned earlier this month that his panel might propose freezing tanker funds.“All this committee has to do is stop the money (and) this program is not going forward,” Murtha said.But other lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee are likely to resist efforts that would cut tanker funds and reopen the competition.Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a senior Republican on the panel, has warned “that Congress should not get in the business of trying to rewrite a contract, particularly one of this magnitude and complexity.”Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., whose constituents would make up some of the work force assembling the Airbus tanker, suggested that Boeing’s supporters on Capitol Hill should get over their disappointment and focus on the main goal: “producing the best aircraft” possible.“We need to get on with it,” Wicker said.Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., whose state would gain thousands of new jobs from the contract, said it should stand.“The complaints have come now from some who didn’t win, and I think that’s a bit late,” Sessions said, adding, “It’s not acceptable to change the rules in the middle of the game, and it’s certainly not acceptable to change the rules after the game is over.