Turn, turn, turn
You may be wondering how the cogs are continuing to turn … if the Congress has sniffed the wind to realize the public has it’s back yet [and, in fact, a hand firmly pressed against it to push it forward] … how the Republic is doing with the shenanigans that continue to plague us on the Hill.
Well — the cogs ARE still continuing to crush whatever gets beneath them, however slowing the momentum … the Congress IS standing up straighter [although the FISA fight is in jeopardy, thanks to Steny Hoyer … you remember when Pelosi named him, and we all asked “Steny whoooo?”] … and the Republic IS still suffering the presidency of George W. Bush, who remains bubbled with his “mandate” and mission of saving capitalism and filling his pockets.
The FEC, the mortgage bailout, the EPA, the GI Bill [note an activist/op in Paul Rieckhoff’s post] — and last, Russ Feingold on secrecy.
Jude
Crippled Election Commission
NYT Editorial
May 8, 2008
The White House is removing a member of the Federal Election Commission for standing up for clean elections, while trying to install another member whose specialty is keeping eligible voters from casting ballots. The Senate, which must confirm nominees, should insist that President Bush appoint commissioners with a proven record of supporting voting rights and fair elections.
Mr. Bush is purging the current F.E.C. chairman, David Mason, presumably because he was responsible enough to challenge the funding machinations of Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign. Mr. Mason shocked his fellow Republicans by notifying Mr. McCain that he might run afoul of the law by switching from public funding to private donations once he secured the party’s nomination.
The White House proposes to replace Mr. Mason with Donald McGahn, a Republican warhorse. F.E.C. commissioners are expected to be aligned with a party — one of the new Democratic nominees is a staff member of Senator Charles Schumer of New York — but Mr. McGahn has a particularly partisan background. He was the party’s Congressional campaign counsel — and the ethics lawyer for Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader from Texas who left office under multiple clouds.
The six-member commission, which now has four vacancies, has been rendered inoperable. If it is to perform its role as referee of national elections, it urgently needs a full complement — and it needs commissioners with the sort of professionalism displayed by Mr. Mason.
Senate Democrats should push for someone more suitable than Mr. McGahn, and they should continue to oppose Hans von Spakovsky, a terrible nominee with a record as a Justice Department lawyer of aggressive partisanship and opposition to minority voting rights. ++
Obama lawyer: Bush fixing FEC for McCain
Politico
May 07, 2008
Obama counsel Bob Bauer, on his always-punchy personal blog, considers the newest appointments to the FEC and writes that the regulatory body is being put back together to exclude a Republican commissioner who had taken a critical stance toward McCain’s attempt to thread the needle on public financing.
In this one move, the White House ended McCain’s accountability for his use or abuse of the primary public financing system while putting him in position to take money for the general.
For this maneuver to have been arranged for the benefit of Senator McCain, of all people–the John McCain who has regularly, severely criticized the FEC as a “corrupt” agency–is a remarkable turn in his career as a reformer. A Commissioner who acted to enforce the law, to just raise an important question of enforcement, has been stripped of his post. This was clearly in Senator McCain’s interest, this raw power play. It is also in his interest to have the FEC, back in business minus Mason, arrange for his money for the fall campaign.
He goes on to make a case that’s going to be central to Obama’s logic for forgoing public financing, despite his pledge to join the system: That McCain is a hypocrite on this reform issue.
For all the time that McCain has savaged the performance of the FEC, he has led the sizeable crowd of critics who believed that the agency is too beholden, on the whole, to the narrow interests of parties and their candidates. Yesterday, Republicans could not have acted more narrowly in just this vein: effectively firing a Commissioner to immunize their Presidential nominee from enforcement action in a pending case but making sure that there is enough of an agency left to get him the money needed to finance his campaign. ++
Democrats’ Housing Plan Faces Bush Veto
Measures To Bail Out Borrowers Slated For Congressional Votes, White House Vows Veto
CBS
May 8, 2008
(AP) Strapped homeowners could refinance into government-backed mortgages and states would get money to deal with foreclosed property under Democrats’ housing aid plan.
The measures, slated for votes Thursday, constitute the most significant action Congress has taken to date to address the housing crisis that’s at the center of the nation’s economic woes.
President Bush has threatened to veto both measures, which he says reward lenders and speculators. Democrats counter that the bills will head off hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, stabilize the shaky housing market, and prevent neighborhood blight.
The centerpiece of their plan is a bill by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the House Financial Services Committee chairman, to have the Federal Housing Administration relax its standards and back up to $300 billion in more affordable, fixed-rate loans for borrowers currently too financially strapped to qualify.
Those homeowners could refinance into new loans if their lenders agreed to take substantial losses on the original mortgages. Borrowers would have to show they could afford to make payments on the new loans. They would have to share with FHA at least half of their proceeds if they profited from selling or refinancing again.
The plan is projected to help roughly 500,000 borrowers at a cost of $2.7 billion over the next five years.
A separate bill by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., would send $15 billion in loans and grants to states for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties. Proponents say it will prevent blight in neighborhoods plagued by abandoned, foreclosed homes.
But Republican critics argue it rewards lenders and investors who own the property, and could act as an incentive for them to foreclose rather than find ways to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes.
Democrats, seeking Republican support for their housing package, were planning to attach a grab-bag of measures Mr. Bush has called for.
Those include legislation to overhaul the FHA, to more tightly regulate government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and authority for state and local housing finance agencies to use tax-exempt bonds to refinance distressed subprime mortgages.
The plan is also to include a housing tax credit of up to $7,500 for first-time home-buyers, to be paid back over 15 years. It would permanently raise the limit on the size of loans FHA could insure and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could buy to $729,750 in the highest-cost housing markets. Those caps are scheduled to fall at the end of the year, to $362,790 for the FHA, and to $417,000 for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ++
EPA Might Not Act To Limit Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water
Erica Werner, AP via CommonDreams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
WASHINGTON - An EPA official said Tuesday there’s a “distinct possibility” the agency won’t take action to rid drinking water of a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has contaminated public water supplies around the country.
Democratic senators called that unacceptable. They argued that states and local communities shouldn’t have to bear the expense of cleansing their drinking water of perchlorate, which has been found in at least 395 sites in 35 states — or the risk of not doing so.
The toxin interferes with thyroid function and poses developmental health risks, particularly to fetuses.
Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the Environmental Protection Agency, told a Senate hearing that EPA is aware that perchlorate is widespread and poses health risks.
But he said that after years of study, EPA has yet to determine whether regulating perchlorate in drinking water would do much good.
“Is there a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk if we issue a new national regulation on perchlorate? We’ve been spending a lot of time on that, Madam Chairman,” Grumbles told Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
“I understand your frustration in how long the process is taking but we believe it’s important to do the work,” Grumbles said, promising a decision by the end of the year.
“EPA is trying to shunt the scientists to the back, put the DOD contractors to the front,” Boxer chided. “We want to see action by the scientists. We want to see a standard set.”
Grumbles told Boxer it was possible that instead of a regulation, EPA would issue a public health advisory, which would simply provide information. After the hearing he told reporters that a decision to regulate perchlorate was also still on the table.
Most perchlorate contamination resulted from Defense Department activities. The Pentagon could face huge cleanup costs if EPA sets a national drinking water standard for the contaminant, and DOD has tussled with EPA over the issue, according to a report last week by congressional investigators.
Perchlorate is particularly widespread in California and the Southwest, where it’s been found in groundwater and in the Colorado River, a drinking water source for 20 million people. It’s also been found in lettuce and other foods. Grumbles said that in determining whether drinking water needs to be regulated, EPA is analyzing results of a Food and Drug Administration study from January that found perchlorate in 74 percent of the 285 foods studied, and found that 81 percent of perchlorate intake by infants comes from baby foods and dairy foods.
The dispute over the federal government’s response has been long-standing. The EPA in 2005 issued a safety standard for the chemical of 24.5 parts per billion which was criticized as “not protective” by EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee. The safety standard indicates what EPA considers a safe exposure level and guides Superfund cleanups, but the agency still didn’t move forward with a drinking water standard.
In absence of that, states acted on their own. In 2007, California adopted a drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion. Massachusetts has set a drinking water standard of 2 parts per billion.
Boxer has introduced legislation that she plans to bring to a committee vote in June that would require EPA to set a drinking water standard. Committee Republicans said Congress should stand back and let the EPA finish its work. ++
The Polluting Of The Environmental Protection Agency
Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, Benjamin Armbruster, and Brad Johnson, AmericanProgress
May 8, 2008
Former attorney general Alberto Gonzales brought disgrace to the Department of Justice, putting loyalty to the President above duty to the country, until the weight of numerous scandals forced his resignation in August 2007. As The New York Times described, he left “a Justice Department that has been tainted by political influence, depleted by the departures of top officials and weakened by sapped morale.” Disturbing parallels can now be seen in Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which President Nixon set up in 1970 to be an independent watchdog for the health of the environment and people. It has become clear that Johnson has subverted that mission, in contravention of science, ethics, and the law. In an oversight hearing yesterday on the politicization of the EPA, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) directly drew the comparison, as McClatchy Newspapers reported. “The last few times Mr. Johnson has appeared before us, he has been less than forthcoming, as evasive and unresponsive as Alberto Gonzales,” Whitehouse said. He added that the forced resignation of EPA regional administrator Mary Gade, who had been investigating dioxin contamination in Michigan by Dow Chemical, “smacks of the U.S. Attorney scandal at the Justice Department last summer.” Like the nine fired U.S. attorneys, Gade was well-regarded and had received strong performance evaluations. As Whitehouse observed, “[H]er forced resignation reeks of political interference.”
MARY GADE’S DISMISSAL: Mary Gade, the EPA’s Midwest regional administrator who resigned last Thursday, laid the blame on her ongoing efforts to compel Dow Chemical to clean up its decades-old dioxin pollution from its flagship plant in Midland, MI. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Gade said, “There is no question this is about Dow.” Committee Chair John Dingell (D-MI) has announced that he “is concerned about this and has asked his oversight staff to look into it.” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has “asked for a meeting with the Administrator of EPA so that I can better understand why Ms. Gade has been placed on administrative leave.” Gade is a lifelong Republican who supported President Bush’s candidacy in 2000. Yet, as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Robert Sussman describes, she was known as “one of the most seasoned and experienced environmental policy-makers in the country.” Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), in contrast, called Gade “unprofessional, vindictive and insulting.” Camp represents Dow Chemical’s home district and owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in Dow stock.
WHITE HOUSE CONTROL: Recent congressional investigations have exposed the degree to which the White House is exerting control over the actions of the EPA. One of the key responsibilities of the EPA is to protect Americans from exposure to toxic chemicals. Last week, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) released a damning report that exposed how toxic chemical “assessments are being undermined by secrecy and White House involvement.” With assistance from the EPA’s top scientific official, Dr. George Gray, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) controls the assessment process, using the “deliberative process privilege” to prevent public oversight. Gray previously ran the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, an industry-funded think tank founded by John D. Graham in 1990 that fights environmental regulation. Until 2006, Graham served as the Bush administration’s regulatory gatekeeper in the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where he repeatedly subverted health, safety and environmental safeguards. Johnson’s EPA is riddled with officials with direct ties to the OMB, including the EPA’s number-two official, Marcus Peacock, who worked in the OMB until 2005, and assistant administrator Christopher Bliley, who was OMB director Jim Nussle’s chief of staff when Nussle served in Congress.
‘ORWELLIAN’ TACTICS: In the words of Boxer, Gray used “Alice in Wonderland” language to “defend the indefensible.” She took particular offense at his claim that the EPA’s regulatory process was “very transparent,” considering that it involves a series of secret inter-agency reviews. Gray also repeatedly hearkened back to “scientific uncertainty” to describe Johnson’s justification for setting standards for ozone and fine particulate matter pollution its scientific advisory boards said were not adequate to protect public health. However, as Dr. George Thurston testified, “In the face of uncertainty, the Clean Air Act stipulates that the Administrator must choose a more stringent standard, to ensure a margin of safety.” Whitehouse — who praised Gray “for his ability to say what I found to be preposterous things with a completely straight face” — described Gray’s treatment of toxicologist Dr. Deborah Rice as “Orwellian.” In 2007, Rice was the chair of an expert peer review panel charged with setting safe exposure levels for deca-BDE, a toxic fire retardant that contaminates human blood and breast milk. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), acting on behalf of the Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Partnership, wrote to Gray to ask that he personally intervene in the process. ACC alleged that the panel is not an “independent, third-party review” because Dr. Rice is a “fervent advocate of banning deca-BDE.” Rice was removed from the panel and her comments stripped because of “the perception of a potential conflict of interest.” ++
A Historic Vote
Paul Rieckhoff, HuffPo
May 7, 2008
Last week I told you about a press conference in which leading Republicans and Democrats got together to call for a new GI Bill. And I said we’d have to wait to see if action was going to follow up those words. Tomorrow, we find out.
Congress has a historic choice to make. The House of Representatives is set to vote on a World War II-style GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as an amendment to emergency supplemental war funding bill. And lawmakers will have to go on record as to whether they truly support our nation’s newest generation of veterans.
The 21st Century GI Bill (S.22/H.R.5740) was originally introduced in Congress by some of the Senate’s own combat veterans, including Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel. This bill has the extraordinary bipartisan support of 57 Senators and 278 Representatives and the endorsement of every major Veterans Service Organization from the American Legion to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). About ten pieces of legislation in Congress today have that kind of bipartisan support — and half of those bills authorize new stamps and coins. That a bill of this magnitude has such overwhelming support is almost unheard of.
This legislation would substantially increase the educational benefits available to service members who have served since September 11, 2001. It would cover the cost of tuition of up to the most expensive in-state public school and provide a living and book stipend, so new veterans can focus on their educations and readjusting to civilian life. The new GI Bill would also provide more equitable benefits to National Guardsman and Reservists, who have made up about a quarter of our fighting force in Iraq. And educational benefits would be linked to the cost of college, so they would keep their value over time. It is, in short, the right thing to do for the men and women who have made such a tremendous commitment to our country.
The momentum for a 21st Century GI Bill has been incredible. But it’s time to finish the job. Tomorrow, we urge every member of Congress to vote “yes” on GI Bill funding and show unanimous support for our troops.
UPDATE: Typical gridlock in Washington has pushed the vote to early next week. And there will probably be more delays in the future as this bill goes through the Senate and to the President. The important thing is that in all this political wrangling, we don’t lose sight of what this bill is supposed to be about: support for our troops. The GI Bill belongs in the emergency supplemental because it is a cost of war, and it’s part of our promise to care for our troops. It’s no different from bullets, body armor or bandages for the wounded. This bill has the support of more than half the House and half the Senate, and we expect to get past these procedural hurdles. At the end of the day, no patriotic American would understand if a member of Congress votes for a $100-plus billion dollar war bill and then nickel-and-dimes the troops who are fighting that war. ++
Help us get the word out. IAVA is encouraging its national membership to call their lawmakers and tell them to vote “yes” on the GI Bill. For more information on this critical issue, please visit www.GIBill2008.org.
Government in secret
The Yoo memo is just one example of Bush’s hidden laws.
Russ Feingold, Los Angeles Times
May 8, 2008
The Bush administration recently announced it will allow select members of Congress to read Justice Department legal opinions about the CIA’s controversial detainee interrogation program that have been hidden from Congress until now. But as the administration allows a glimpse of this secret law — and it is law — we are left wondering what other laws it is still keeping under lock and key.
It’s a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record. But the law in this country includes not just statutes and regulations, which the public can readily access. It also includes binding legal interpretations made by courts and the executive branch. These interpretations are increasingly being withheld from the public and Congress.
Perhaps the most notorious example is the recently released 2003 Justice Department memorandum on torture written by John Yoo. The memorandum was, for a nine-month period in 2003, the law that the administration followed when it came to matters of torture. And that law was essentially a declaration that the administration could ignore the laws passed by Congress.
The content of the memo was deeply troubling, but just as troubling was the fact that this legal opinion was classified and its content kept secret for years. As we now know, the memo should never have been classified because it contains no information that could compromise national security if released. In a Senate hearing that I chaired April 30, the top official in charge of classification policy from 2002 to 2007 testified that classification of this memo showed “either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for” the standards for classification.
The memos on torture policy that have been released or leaked hint at a much bigger body of law about which we know virtually nothing. The Yoo memo was filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to see the light of day, on subjects including the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization and the government’s ability to bypass the 4th Amendment in domestic military operations.
Another body of secret law involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 1978, Congress created the special FISA court to review the government’s requests for wiretaps in intelligence investigations, which is — and should be — done behind closed doors. But with changes in technology and with this administration’s efforts to expand its surveillance powers, the court today is doing more than just reviewing warrant applications. It is issuing important interpretations of FISA that have effectively made new law.
These interpretations deeply affect Americans’ privacy rights, and yet Americans don’t know about them because they are not allowed to see them. Very few members of Congress have been allowed to see them either. When the Senate recently approved some broad and controversial changes to FISA, almost none of the senators voting on the bill could know what the law currently is.
The code of secrecy also extends to yet another body of law: changes to executive orders. The administration takes the position that a president can “waive” or “modify” a published executive order without any public notice — simply by not following it. It’s every president’s prerogative to change an executive order, but doing so without public notice works a secret change in the law. And, because the published order stays on the books, Congress and the public have no idea that it’s no longer in effect. We don’t know how many of these covert changes have been made by this administration or, for that matter, by past administrations.
No one questions the need for the government to protect information about intelligence sources and methods, troop movements or weapons systems. But there’s a big difference between withholding information about military or intelligence operations from the public and withholding the law that governs the executive branch. Keeping the law secret doesn’t enhance national security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without oversight or accountability. Even the congressional intelligence committees, which are supposed to oversee the intelligence community, have been denied access to some of these legal opinions.
Congress should pass legislation to require the administration to alert Congress when the law created by Justice Department opinions ignores or even violates the laws passed by Congress, and to require public notice when it is waiving or modifying a published executive order. Congress and the public shouldn’t have to wonder whether the executive branch is following the laws that are on the books or some other, secret law. ++
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees.
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Add comment May 8th, 2008