The U.S. House of Representatives voted 223 to 32 today to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt. They were ordered to appear before Congress nearly a year ago and have not. Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court as a brushback pitch setting up Roberts, and Bolten was the chief of staff during the U.S. Attorney firings. Both are wanted to testify about their roles in firing several federal prosecutors and manufacturing allegations to cover the actual reasons for the dismissals. Bush has offered to have them testify without transcripts or oaths.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also approved contempt citations for Bolten and Rove, but the full Senate has not acted.

Florida Rep. Wexler is determined to have Cheney before him under oath in the coming year, and this is a good step in that direction.

Do you ever get the idea that no one is home in the state capitol? It seems like our congressional committees have been doing a lousy job. The congress was told about the possibility the CIA might destroy these tapes. They were told about "excessive interrogation techniques". They were told we were going to move detainees to a place that would effectively place them on Torture Island for eons without any charges or way to protest their endless incarceration. but they apparently did little to follow up on these things. They should have raised a storm, but all they did was whimper, write a few letters, suggest these might not be good practices and then went silent.
Link...

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) is going to bring H.Res.333, "Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President," to a vote in the House of Representatives today as a "privileged resolution." Such measures require Congressional action within two days. The resolution, co-sponsored by 21 other representatives,* calls for Dick Cheney's impeachment on the grounds that the Vice President

• purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,
• purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and
• openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, in contravention of Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter, to which the United States is bound by treaty.
  

The House is scheduled to vote on overriding Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program today.

Contrary to GOP talking points, it's not "socialized medicine" for "people who can afford their own insurance." It's insurance (not health care) for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to fork over $12,000 per year for family health insurance. SCHIP premiums range from about $10 per month per child up to $450 per month per family depending on income and which state program.

Nonetheless, the Bush 30% dead-enders will likely block the veto override. Our Congressman, Rep. Jimmy Duncan, will be one of them.

Nearly 10 million children do not have health insurance. The bill would add $35 billion over five years to help cover some of them. That works out to $7 billion per year. The occupation of Iraq is costing us nearly $10 billion per month.

You can contact Rep. Duncan here.

If you usually toss the junk letters that come from credit card companies, the ones with all kinds of offers and those seductive checks urging you to go on a spending spree, beware!

I was shocked to see Discover card was raising it's default rate to 42%. They also had an across the board increase regardless of your good payment history etc. My APR went from 13% to 22%. I don't usually carry a very large balance on cards and always pay on time, so I was outraged. Customer service wasn't impressed, so I closed my account with them. If you send them a letter in writing, you can keep y0ur original APR. But this information was sent in a letter, not with my monthly statement, so how many people tossed them out thinking they were junk mail?

I've never made a blog entry here, but this particular blog seems like the best forum to take my questions about what happened in Congress this weekend.

I'm referring to the passage, demanded by President Bush, of continuing to expand some questionable surveillance programs. I admit to having hopes they would be able to adjourn without voting on the bill, but realizing it would likely pass since this President seems to get from Congress whatever he wants or ignores them whenever he wants.

The always outspoken critic of the administration, Glenn Greenwald, writes about some of the same things the passage brought to my mind, but I have others too for your consideration.

Why was this bill not fought and debated as intently as the recent Iraq War funding debate? Was that just theatrics after all?

Why are Democrats (those who voted Yes are listed in Greenwald's article) caving to the President? Or was it caving in at all? Is this why Congress' approval ratings are so low?

I know the FISA bill has a limited lifespan, but once policies are made into law, they seldom end. I'm just not very happy with this approval and have been hoping that Congress would provide less approval, even if that means stalling the entire legislative agenda.

Not that I consider aggressive intelligence-gathering bad, far from it. But it sure seems like both the intelligence groups and the Attorney General's office have done a truly botched job in the last 6 years - so how can Congress justify expanding the roles of both groups?

Congressman Steve Cohen is under attack from right-wing fundamentalists for supporting the hate crimes bill, which they believe will limit their free speech. Egalia explains.

You’re going On Vacation?

Where does the Senate and the House of Representatives think they are going? Vice President Cheney flew to Iraq and told the government they shouldn’t go on vacation.

I want to turn on C-Span and see the House of Representatives and the Senate sitting in their respective chairs making policy; discussing it, showing the American people that they just might have read the bills they are signing. Right now it looks like everybody left at half time. Never mind, “negotiations behind closed doors” that perpetuate the Iraqi War with no end in sight; sending the same men and women back into combat, because there is no draft and because that would certainly stop this sick fiasco.

Sit down, every last one of you, in front of the American people and do the JOB that you were elected TO DO. Stop shuffling the cards. If you are going to Impeach, Impeach. You voted to keep this war, explain why our children (and certainly not many of yours) need go back three and four times to die for it. Explain why it costs billions for 150,000 troops in Iraq ? Where is the rest of the money going? To whom? Explain NOW, or bring the troops home. If you want to clean up the air, clean it up NOW.. Don’t designate funds. Fix the Ninth Ward in New Orleans . We need jobs. Stop building America with Mickey Mouse ears. Don’t pitch McDonald’s hats for graduation gifts. Don’t tell Americans they can’t buy cheap drugs from Canada , because the drugs may have problems while we sell alcohol and cigarettes with a label that says watch out, but do it anyway. Say the word “homeless” out loud several times, so it exists. You might even do something about it. Get off non-issues that feed this consumptive culture.

Resolution to Vote For? Shall it be this leg, that one, a toe, half a head, an eyeball? A son, a daughter? Which part? Which whom are you willing to part with? This war is about privatizing oil and building bases in Iraq . Our soldiers are wounded and dying and this country is running out of gas. Stop it NOW!

NO waiting until September. No fishing. No golf. No freebies. No raises this year. No nothing! Cut the sad faces. Show up on time. Sit in the heat of it. You work for us and at this point, you are non- union.

David Plumb

While Congress debated whether to end the senseless U.S. occupation of Iraq last night, four more American soldiers died.

OK, so we've seen the movie and we're sufficiently outraged and we're starting to talk about our broken health care system.

What now? What can we actually do about it?

Read more...

As you've probably heard, Rep. William Jefferson has been indicted on some pretty serious charges. Facing South has some interesting background.

Democrats in Congress need to clean house and send a message that the Culture of Corruption is over and will no longer be tolerated. While presumed innocent at this point, Jefferson should be thinking about how the people in his district can best be served, and whether he will be able to do so effectively. Tom Delay resigned when he was indicted.

The Senate yesterday rejected two separate amendments to the immigration bill that would eliminate the Z Visa legalization program and limit the Y Visa guest worker program by phasing it out after five years.

The vote against sunsetting the Y Visa guest worker program was close at 49-48. (Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have eliminated the Y Visa immigration program altogether by a vote of 64-31.)

The vote against eliminating the Z Visa legalization program was 66-29. 26 Republicans joined 38 Democrats and two independents to vote for the legalization program. Nine Democrats voted against it. They are: Pryor (D-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), McCaskill (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Tester (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Dorgan (D-ND), Byrd (D-WV), and Rockefeller (D-WV).

Sens. Alexander and Corker both voted to eliminate the Z Visa legalization program. Sen. Corker, a co-sponsor of the Y Visa amendment, voted for sunsetting the guest worker program. Sen. Alexander voted against it*.

The Senate has delayed a vote on the full immigration bill until June.

See here for more info on the immigration bill including the Y Visa guest worker program and the Z Visa legalization program.

*UPDATE: Looks like Sen. Alexander may have been the swing vote against the Y Visa sunset? ACK has more observations and speculation.

The Senate began debate this week on a new "compromise" immigration bill (S.1348). This is a complicated bill and it's hard to find objective info.

In addition, many of the amendments are not incorporated in their final form into the version currently published at Thomas.loc.gov.

Read more for a roundup of information and commentary on the bill...

Apropos of the latest scandal, here's an interesting report from the Congressional Research Service on Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power. It has analysis of the law and lots of historical case studies.

Here's their conclusion:

Committee subpoenas and contempt citations have been effective instruments for gaining access to executive branch documents that are initially withheld. The pressure that builds from these two techniques generally results in the Administration offering new accommodations to satisfy legislative needs. Although both branches at times seek assistance from the courts, the general message from federal judges is that an agreement hammered out between the two branches is better than a directive handed down by a court.

The executive-legislative conflicts described in this report offer several lessons about access to information. Congress has as much right to agency documents for oversight purposes as it does for legislation. Executive claims of “deliberative process,” “enforcement sensitive,” “ongoing investigation,” or “foreign policy considerations” have not been, in themselves, adequate grounds for keeping documents from Congress. On the issue of withholding information from Congress, there are often sharp differences within an Administration, especially between the Justice Department and the agencies.

Further, these case studies show that statutory language that authorizes withholding information from the public is not a legitimate reason for withholding information from Congress. Sharing sensitive information with congressional committees is not the same as sharing information with the public. Courts assume that congressional committees will exercise their powers responsibly. Legislative committees have demonstrated that they have reliable procedures for protecting confidentiality. Finally, congressional capacity to subpoena agency documents from private organizations is not an adequate substitute for receiving them directly from the agency.

Direct deposit:

One oddity Corker learned while there: Iraqi troops are paid in cash and then hand deliver the money to their families at home. While they are away on each money delivery, they are not helping their unit.

The gutless resolution passed this week and the embarassing excuse for an ethics reform bill passed by the new Congress are just the Democrats testing to be sure the training wheels are off, right? Now that they realize they have enough votes to pass legislation, the House will endeavor to explain to America how pallets of hundred-dollar bills were lost in Iraq and why soldiers were performing sexual humiliation, stress tests, physical torture, degradation and injury on prisoners in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Instead of pursuing answers and solutions, Democrats again are fumbling about trying to do no wrong because they can't decide what is right. The resolution passed this week had to be non-binding to keep it from being unconstitutional...


entire santa anna army on the way
get the hell out of there
###


Shocking video has been revealed that could wreck Al Franken's political career before it even starts. This is sad. This is the politics of personal destruction at its worst.

Bush's $2.9 trillion budget increases defense spending and cuts domestic programs.

The budget includes a record $481 billion for defense spending, a 12% increase, plus $245 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here at home, Bush's budget cuts $101 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding, and would increase premiums for many Medicare enrollees.

It also limits funding for state Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP). Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says the $5 billion proposed for CHIP would fund only one-third of those already enrolled.

Bush's budget cuts education, training, employment and social services grants by 8%, or nearly $5 billion.

The budget would increase Pell Grants, but pay for it by "reshuffling funds from several other grant programs for low-income students" and cutting subsidies to banks making student loans.

Bush would also cut funding for Head Start and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

The budget proposes an $81 billion increase in federal fees, most notably an increase of fees paid by generic drug manufacturers seeking FDA approval (wonder what that's all about?). In the "good idea" fee increase catagory, the budget would increase Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation premiums paid by corporations to insure against pension plan defaults.

In the energy category, Bush's budget includes $385 million for clean coal research and $148 million for research to make "solar photovoltaic technology competitive with conventional electricity by 2015." There is also $179 million in biofuels research, which is a waste of taxpayer money in my opinion.

These meager proposals are dwarfed by the massive spending for securing nuclear stockpiles ($9.4 billion) and cleaning up hazardous nuclear waste ($5.6 billion). There is, however, a request for $4.4 billion for the American Competitiveness Initiative energy research program.

This article, while rather poorly written, is an otherwise good summary of Bush's environmental (and anti-environmental) budget proposals.

There was some good news for the National Park Service. Bush proposes a $230 million increase in funding, for a total of $2.4 billion. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park will get more than 10% in additional funding with a $1.89 million increase, the largest ever.

Bush also proposes a $100 million per year increase in National Park System funding over the next ten years, which, coupled with "private funding", could provide up to $3 billion for sprucing up national parks in preparation for the system's 100 year anniversary. This could help with the Great Smoky Mountain's $180 million maintenance backlog.

Other winners and losers here.

"The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Bob Corker, 2006: Pilot is "the largest seller of biodiesel in the country."

KNS, 2007: Pilot "wants to start selling a soybean/diesel biofuel but cannot find a large regional producer."

(Pilot Corp. Customer Service in e-mail to KnoxViews, 2006: "At the current time, we do not have a travel center in Tennessee that has biodiesel.")

How Congressman Jimmy Duncan voted on the First 100 Hours Agenda legislation:

Ethics Reform Title 1, Rules: Yes
Ethics Reform Title 2, Ethics: Yes
Ethics Reform Title 3, Civility: Yes
Ethics Reform Title 4, Fiscal responsibility*: No
Ethics Reform Title 5, Misc.: No
Enhanced Intelligence Oversight: No
9/11 Commission Recommendations: No
Minimum Wage: Yes
Stem Cell Research: No
Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation: No
College Student Relief Act: Yes
Energy Alternatives Act: No

(*Fiscal Responsibility provisions include Pay As You Go and Earmark Reform.)

Bill held up over tax cuts.

Guess the Senate Dems will need a supermajority to get anything through the Senate. Which they would probably need anyway to override Bush's vetoes.

There is more work to be done to bust out the people's legislative logjam, starting in 2008.

UPDATE: Sen. Alexander and Sen. Corker both voted against cloture, i.e. for the filibuster. Aren't they supposed to be friends of the working people of Tennessee, where nearly 14% of the population lives in poverty?

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives make good on their First 100 Hours agenda with time to spare:

Democrats accomplished their early legislative goals in 87 hours, adopting new ethics rules and passing bills raising the minimum wage, expanding taxpayer financed research into embryonic stem cells, forcing more homeland security measures, directing the federal government to negotiate for cheaper Medicare prescription drugs and lowering interest rates on subsidized student loans.

Bonus, today they passed a measure rolling back tax breaks for oil companies and recouping billions in lost royalties. Now it's up to the Senate to deliver.

Senate Republicans filibuster ethics reform. It's the dawn of a new era of bipartisanship in Congress!

Rep. Jimmy Duncan, along with seven other Republican members of Congress, sent Bush a letter opposing escalation of the war in Iraq. I guess that makes him a "surrenderist" or "retreatist" or whatever the Fox News Approved term of the day is.

Lost among all the yammering about idiot man-child's latest recipe for disaster was the news that the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 within two years. It passed 315 to 116, with 82 Republicans voting for it.

To their credit, the House passed a "no strings attached" bill. Senate Majority Leader Reid says it will have to be amended to include tax breaks for small business to get past the Senate and for Bush to sign it. He suggested Republicans would filibuster otherwise. Interesting.

Anyway, America may finally be on the road to recovery.

Democrats in Congress are making national security one of their first orders of business:

House Democrats announced legislation yesterday aimed at implementing many of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, including calls for more thorough cargo screening, better emergency communications and more money for cities at the highest risk of terrorist attack.

It's about time our government got serious about protecting America's ports. Upgraded communications for first responders was one of the top priorities identified just days after the 9/11 attacks, and five years later nothing much has been done. I guess we've focused all our efforts and spending on security for the "green zone" in Iraq.

According to the article, Republican say the 9/11 commission recommendations haven't been implemented because they were blocked by Democrats in Congress. That would be the Republican controlled Congress.

Seriously, don't you think America is on to the "up is down", "war is peace", "suspending the Bill of Rights is liberty" bizzaro-world-speak by now?

Bush is set to reveal his latest plan for success in Iraq, and by all accounts it will involve a "surge" of troops (i.e. escalation) and more money, even after saying previously that it would "undermine our strategy." (We had a strategy? Who knew?)

Nancy Pelosi says that sending more troops must be "justified" and that Congress will take a hard look at any more funding. She says they would go along with providing funds for support of troops already there and expanding the military to protect our interests but would consider withholding funding for sending more troops in Iraq.

Republican and some Democrats including Joe Biden say Congress has no authority to do this. I'm curious about that. If Congress has to approve war powers, why can't Congress take them away?

The joint resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq says, among other things:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[..]

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[..]

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[..]

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

All of which was a pack of lies, of course. Regardless, that was the pretext we were sold. It would seem that we have neutralized all those threats, including Saddam and the WMDs. So why do we need to send more troops?

Sen. John McCain says Congress has a responsibility to finish what they started. More specifically, the resolution says Bush is authorized to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

It looks like "mission accomplished" to me. No Saddam. No WMD. The only terrorists are waging civil war against each other. The only Americans threatened by Iraq are the American soldiers Bush put in harms way by sending them to Iraq.

Anyway, the resolution also says:

The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

So where is Mr. Bush's homework? Where are the reports? What has he been telling Congress for four years? Specifically, what has Mr. Bush's reported regarding progress on enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 687, 949, which the resolution specifically authorized him to enforce?

This war and this President are so far outside the scope of the war powers resolution (which were based on a pack of lies in the first place) it is null and void at this point. What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. If that isn't in the law or the Constitution somewhere, it ought to be and we should amend the Constitution to protect us from real dangers such as George W. Bush instead of worrying about gays burning flags at their weddings. I think that's what the founders had in mind anyway.

OK, then.

Sen. Barbara Boxer will be the new head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and says the days of Bush environmental rollbacks are over:

"Any kind of weakening of environmental laws or secrecy or changes in the dead of night — it's over," Boxer said. "We're going to for once, finally, make this committee an environment committee, not an anti-environment committee. ... This is a sea change that is coming to this committee."

She also said they are going to take global warming seriously. Outgoing committee chairman Sen. James Inhofe says it's a hoax, and in his last committee meeting today will air his view that "the news media have fanned alarmism about global warming."

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi said she would put minimum wage to a vote first thing in January. As we were frequently reminded during the first week of November, Democrats clearly do not have a plan.