Congress from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Stingy Republicans Hurting GOP Ad Efforts

Mike Lillis — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:30:00 GMT

For Senate Republicans, November could be the cruelest month. Not only are they the party of the least popular president in the history of approval ratings, but they also have scandals to confront and 23 seats to defend (compared to just 12 for Democrats). Seems that, in the face of all those factors, Sen. John Ensign (Nev.), who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is having a bit of trouble getting colleagues to open their wallets to help out Republicans facing tough reelection bids this year. The absence of willing donors is impeding GOP efforts to run campaign ads. From CQ:

Republican lawmakers contributed $1.1 million to the NRSC through June, while Democrats chipped in nearly $5 million, according to FEC reports. Joint fundraising committees raised nearly $1.2 million for the NRSC, compared to $3.4 million for the DSCC.

[…]

Ensign had challenged his colleagues to step up back in July by increasing their fundraising efforts or by providing more of their own direct contributions. His statement amounted to a renewed call to arms.

"It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will engage in this election and help match what the Democrats are doing," Ensign said. "If they do, I will adjust our budget accordingly."

Not sure what Ensign hopes to accomplish by issuing such a statement, unless he thinks that embarrassment is the surest form of persuasion. Perhaps, senator, your colleagues just see a losing cause when they see one.

Waxman v. Stephen Johnson, Clean Water Act Edition

Matthew Blake — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:55:07 GMT

House oversight committee chair Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) issued a subpoena yesterday to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson to provide documents on enforcement of the Clean Water Act. While it's become a familiar story line -- EPA Administrator stonewalling an oversight committee investigation -- the Clean Water saga has had some unique twists and turns.

According to Waxman's committee, Greenpeace obtained what they say is an internal EPA memorandum grousing about the agency's inability to enforce the 1972 Clean Water Act. Greenpeace has since handed the memo over to the oversight committee. The memo is said to outline how a 2006 Supreme Court case "negatively affected 500 enforcement cases" mostly involving wetlands. Waxman-- along with Rep. Jim Oberstar, (D-Mn.) chair of the House transportation committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act-- believe the memo is legit and they've spent the last month trying to get EPA to produce documents related to it.

Rapanos v. U.S. was a rare court case without a controlling majority opinion. Charged with deciding if Michigan developer John Rapanos could build a mall on 35 acres of wetlands, the justices issued three different opinions on whether wetlands had to be a "navigable waterway" in order to merit federal regulation. Following the non-decision, the EPA has struggled to determine what bodies of water are protected under the Clean Water Act. But instead of admitting as much, EPA Asst. Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles told the transportation committee in May that Raponos has has had no ill effect-- contradicting the document he allegedly received from a fellow EPA clean water official.

The best-case scenario is that Johnson will hand over the documents and they'll reveal he's had a super-secret plan all along to enforce the Clean Water Act.

Report: Tubbs Jones Dead at Age 58

Mike Lillis — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:11:20 GMT

Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who suffered an aneurysm Tuesday night while driving near Cleveland, has died this evening, according to the Associated Press:

Clinic spokeswoman Eileen Sheil says Tubbs Jones died at 6:12 p.m. Wednesday after suffering a brain hemorrhage caused by an aneurysm that burst and left her with limited brain function.

The sad episode had caused confusion around Washington earlier in the day when a number of news outlets, citing an anonymous source, reported the death prematurely.

The 59-year-old former judge was the first black woman to represent Ohio in Congress. She was slated to be a superdelegate at next week's Democratic convention in Denver.

Tubbs Jones Hospitalized After Aneurysm

Mike Lillis — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:08:15 GMT

Stephanie Tubbs Jones -- Democratic super-delegate, vocal Hillary Clinton supporter, and the first black woman to represent Ohio in Congress -- remains hospitalized in critical condition Wednesday in Cleveland. She suffered an aneurysm in an unreachable part of her brain Tuesday night while driving and has not recovered, according to reports. Her 59th birthday is in three weeks.

The five-term congresswoman took over the chairmanship of the House ethics committee when the Democrats took control of the chamber in 2007. She is also a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy and Medicare, among other things.

Tubbs Jones, a former municipal court judge, is a vocal critic of the voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 elections, sponsoring legislation to prevent the troubles from recurring. A member of the Congressional Black Caucus, she has also championed a number of urban issues, including affordable housing, felon rights and STD awareness.

Updates coming as they arrive.

New Documentary: a Testimony to Washington Prodigality

Mike Lillis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:19:07 GMT

It's not often that prominent senators go out of their way to promote the latest movie release. Then again, it's not often that anyone makes a movie about the federal budget crisis.

I.O.U.S.A., set for release nationwide Thursday, is such a film, and while it won't star Heath Ledger, it does promise a tale of excess that many consider villainous.

Consider a few facts: The country, currently more than $9 trillion in debt, faces a deficit approaching $500 billion next year. Entitlement spending (ie, that over which Congress has no control) consumes 62 percent of the annual budget -- up from 38 percent in 1966 -- and it's rising. Medicare alone is expected to grow at three times the rate of the rest of the economy over the next 25 years. And this does nothing to mention the cost of a no-end-in-sight war on terror that will certainly run into the trillions.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top-ranked Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, is using the release of I.O.U.S.A. to highlight the looming crisis. From a statement issued Tuesday:

The big problems facing our nation's future hit the big screen this week, but unlike other summer blockbusters, this drama is real. The fiscal tsunami is gaining momentum and threatens to drown our nation's economy.

Debt is growing to incomprehensible levels and this scenario does not make for a happy ending, especially if we continue to allow our three largest entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- to grow unchecked.

The coming budget debates will be interesting. Republicans, no doubt, will blame Democrats for wasting taxpayer dollars on socialized medicine and abortions for illegal immigrants. Yet a vast majority of this debt was amassed under the three GOP presidents occupying the White House since 1980, beginning, of course, with Ronald Reagan. As The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman pointed out during the commotion surrounding Reagan's death in 2004:

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Similarly, when the second Bush was elected in 2000, the debt was roughly $5.6 trillion. When he leaves office in January, the figure will be roughly $4 trillion higher. (Under eight years of Clinton, by contrast, the debt jumped about $1.6 trillion. As a percentage of GDP, it actually fell.)

"The War on Terror is being waged to protect America's security," Gregg said. "We need a war on debt that will do the same."

Indeed. First, though, we need an administration attuned to the notion that deficits, in fact, matter.

Justice Dept. Files Motion To Prevent Investigation of the Justice Dept.

Matthew Blake — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:01:13 GMT

The tension between an investigation into politicization at the the Justice Dept. and the agency's duty to weigh in to Congress on constitutional matters has come to a head. The Justice Dept's vested interest in executive privilege became an issue last night when the department filed a motion in a U.S. district court saying that a federal judge should reverse his recent decision that executive privilege doesn't give White House officials immunity to testify before Congress.

Patrick Bates, a judge for the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., ruled last month that Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, must tell Congress under oath what she knows about the fired U.S. attorney's. Bates also compelled Josh Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff, to turn over documents related to U.S. Attorney's. Bates argued that even if the President asserts executive privilege for Bolten and Miers, the two must cooperate with the judiciary committee and only invoke executive privilege in specific instances.

The motion may also affect the looming testimony of Karl Rove, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, and even the Attorney General himself, Michael Mukasey. Each has claimed executive privilege in the face of subpoenas from either the House judiciary or oversight committees.

It's not entirely clear whether Justice is acting genuinely to uphold separation of powers or protecting itself from incriminating revelations. Regardless, with Congress in session for just three more weeks until the election, it might be a useful stalling tactic.

Tough Year to Oppose New Drilling

Mike Lillis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:37:06 GMT

As the energy debate continues to bubble around the country, it appears more and more Democrats are abandoning their opposition to expanded offshore drilling for fear of getting caught on the wrong side of public sentiment in November. The latest to go: Colorado's Mark Udall, a five-term Democrat who's racing to fill the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Wayne Allard. From Politico:

Udall, one of the House's preeminent environmentalists and the Democratic nominee in a closely contested Colorado Senate race, came out in favor of a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that would permit additional offshore drilling -- a striking departure from his past opposition to such measures.

He also aired a television ad featuring oil workers on a derrick, with Udall saying, "We've got to produce our own oil and gas here in our country and keep it here to power America's economy."

And that's fine that a guy wants to change his mind. Flip-flopping has adopted a bad name in Washington, but only a fool would stay on a path headed for a cliff. (That was the simple message John Kerry had so much trouble relaying four years ago.) What makes the drilling floppers different is the simple fact that, according to the Energy Dept., increased drilling will do nothing to bump domestic production or lower gas prices before 2030. That's 22 years from now. Not that we'll all be flying around Jetson-style on Arugula-powered hovercraft by then, but surely -- for the environment, for the economy , for future generations -- we could make a more dramatic move away from a short-sighted reliance on the finite goo pooled beneath our feet. If we wanted to.

Pelosi's Election Year Strategy

Mike Lillis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:56:47 GMT

Here we go again.

Just two months after House Democrats angered liberal voters by agreeing to controversial warrantless wiretapping legislation, party leaders are signaling compromise on another issue that could alienate many progressive supporters: offshore oil drilling.

It wasn't meant to be this way. Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have railed against a drilling expansion for months. Yet in a tense election year, when public perception becomes political reality and nuance is often the first to flee the debate, Republicans seem to have sold their version of the drilling tale more effectively.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Over the weekend, Pelosi indicated she will accept increased drilling as part of a larger energy package.

"[The bill] will consider opening portions of the outer continental shelf for drilling," she said during the Democrats' weekly radio address Saturday, "with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies for big oil."

On the surface, Pelosi's comments mark a sharp reversal for the San Francisco Democrat, who until recently had fought the drilling expansion tooth and nail, calling it "a decoy," "a hoax" and "not a solution."

But environmentalists need not weep just yet. Pelosi also emphasized that she plans to load the Democrats' energy bill with a number of party priorities that have failed to pass the House this year. Provisions to release some of the nation's emergency oil reserves, cut public transit costs and eliminate billions in subsidies to major oil companies, for example, could face fierce opposition from congressional Republicans and the White House. Indeed, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a statement accusing Pelosi of designing a plan destined to fail.

"While the speaker now claims to embrace a comprehensive energy plan that includes more conservation, more innovation and more American energy production," Boehner said, "the fact is her new effort appears to be just another flawed plan that will do little to lower gas prices."

The episode is just the latest in the partisan chess match over energy policy that's dominated Congress's August vacation and is poised to play a major role in November elections. Led by the White House and Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, Republicans have blasted Democratic leaders for their refusal to lift the decades-old drilling ban -- even in the face of towering fuel costs.

Democrats, led by Pelosi, have favored a move toward renewable fuels. They have been quick to point out that expanding drilling would provide no immediate benefit for consumers -- a position supported by the Bush administration's own Energy Dept.

Last year, the Energy Information Admin., a research branch of the Energy Dept., found that increasing offshore drilling would have no significant effect on either domestic production or gas prices before 2030. Yet, while the EIA may be the authority on the issue, the Republicans' "drill here, drill now" slogan has proven the easier sell to voters weary of $114 per barrel oil.

Indeed, public-opinion polls indicate that most Americans see offshore drilling as a viable way to cut costs at the pump. Faced with a shifting public sentiment -- not to mention the looming elections -- Democrats have begun to embrace the concept, if only to place the blame on Republicans if the larger energy package eventually fails due to GOP opposition.

Last month, a group of 10 senators -- five Democrats and five Republicans -- introduced legislation containing pet provisions of each party. The compromise includes an offshore drilling expansion for Republicans, for example, and also eliminates major oil company subsidies, which Democrats support.

On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that the Senate's bipartisan strategy -- including the increased drilling -- is "a step in the right direction." Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democrat's presumptive presidential nominee, has embraced the Senate package as well.

Highlighting the debate, more than 100 House Republicans have swept through Washington this month to take to the podium in the empty House chamber, where they've urged Pelosi to call Congress back into session for the sake of a drilling vote. The stunt has made headlines across the country, putting greater pressure on Pelosi and the Democrats to address the issue.

In some ways, the episode parallels that surrounding the wiretapping debate that consumed much of the year. Rallying behind Pelosi, House Democrats had for months rejected Republicans' demands for telecom immunity, only to cave in the end for fear of a November backlash. Obama, once a vocal foe of immunity, also reversed course to support the final vote.

Environmentalists are holding out hope that the drilling saga will play out differently. They hope Pelosi's change of position is, indeed, simply a political play intended to fail. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, issued a statement Saturday in response to Pelosi's radio address, maintaining that the debate itself will be enough to kill the drilling expansion.

"The upcoming debate in Congress," Pope said, "will allow the truth to come out -- that offshore drilling won't lower gas prices today, tomorrow or a even a decade from now and will simply benefit Big Oil's bottom line, instead of helping hard-working Americans."

Russia Invades Georgia: Defense Contractors Declare Victory

Matthew Blake — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:37:53 GMT

The Wall Street Journal's August Cole had an interesting take on Russia's invasion of Georgia this weekend: it's great for Lockheed Martin, Boeing and other mega-defense contractors. A stock analyst is quoted as saying that the invasion was "a bell-ringer for defense stocks."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recently thought out loud about cutting major weapons programs like Lockheed and Boeing's $143 million F-22 Air Force raptor jet and Boeing and SAIC's $160 billion Future Combat Systems. Gates has argued that they bear no relevance to counterinsurgency fighting that is currently taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Russia's invasion of Georgia at least raises the possibility of a future U.S.-Russia conflict. according to Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), who said as much to the Journal.

But Murtha's analysis and that of other lawmakers may have more to do with the jobs these weapons systems generate for their constituents. Murtha now wants to spend $523 million to buy 20 more F-22's than the White House has proposed. So I guess if Russia launches a full-scale aerial war against the U.S. and America isn't prepared, we shouldn't blame Jack Murtha.

Bush Administration Backs Off On Kid's Insurance Squeeze

Mike Lillis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:46:43 GMT

Softening its stance, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it won't enforce controversial new eligibility rules designed to prevent modest-income kids from enrolling in the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.

The new rules were slated to take effect next Monday, but Medicare officials, who oversee SCHIP, said they don't intend to penalize states for noncompliance -- at least not yet.

Under the new guidelines, states would be prohibited from using federal SCHIP funds to cover kids living above 250 percent of the poverty level ($53,000 for a family of four) unless they had first covered 95 percent of kids living under 200 percent of poverty ($42,400). The changes mark one in a growing number of examples in which the administration has hoped to establish policy independent of Congress.

The White House and many congressional Republicans say the regulations would ensure that SCHIP targets the children most in need. But state health officials, children's advocates and many Democrats had howled when the rules were unveiled.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a fierce critic of the Aug. 17 changes, cheered the White House decision:

Maybe CMS is beginning to get it. This statement seems to show that CMS is finally making the connection between its misguided CHIP directive and the real kids it could hurt.

Considering that the Government Accountability Office deemed the new rules illegal earlier this year, Baucus could well have added that maybe the administration is finally willing to operate within the law.

It's Official: Davis Falls to Roe

Mike Lillis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:24:10 GMT

Well, it took eight days, but now it's official: Rep. David Davis (R-Tenn.) finally conceded defeat to primary challenger Phil Roe on Friday. Davis, a freshman congressman representing the rural eastern chunk of the state, had considered challenging the results, which put Roe ahead by just 486 votes out of more than 51,000 cast. He accused Democrats of crossing party lines to secure his defeat, hoping perhaps that Roe would be a less formidable candidate in November. (In that conservative district, it won't matter. All signals point to a Roe win later this year). Davis's words, from The Hill:

"I am announcing today that even though I have the law on my side, I have decided not to pursue an election contest with the Republican Primary Board," Davis said. "I love East Tennessee and I love America, therefore it is in the best interest of everyone concerned that I concede the election to my primary opponent. I have contacted Mr. Roe and made him aware of my decision."

Roe, the conservative mayor of Johnson City, had nonetheless attacked from the left, charging Davis with cozying up to big oil interests by accepting industry money. The verdict remains out on the extent to which that association contributed to Davis's demise, but his participation in the GOP energy revolt this month probably didn't help.

Davis's defeat is the fourth for a Republican congressional incumbent this year.

More Woes for Stevens

Mike Lillis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:58:00 GMT

Seems that the deal-making Ted Stevens wasn't active only in Alaska, but in Florida as well. According to new court documents filed by federal prosecutors yesterday, the six-term Republican allegedly failed to report a $31,000 interest-free loan he took out from an unnamed friend to buy a South Florida condo in 2001.

According to prosecutors (pdf), Stevens was required to put $36,000 down on the unbuilt Gold Coast unit -- 10 percent of the $360,000 purchase price -- but only dropped $5,000 himself. The remaining $31,000 was picked up by the friend.

But it appears the Stevens family never intended to live there, and a few months later, the property was sold for $515,000 (nice!). A few weeks afterwards, Stevens wrote two separate checks to the friend -- one for $15,000 and another for $16,000. (The first was sent on Sept. 12, 2001, according to prosecutors, leaving some wonder as to why he wasn't busy with other diversions that day.) Trouble was, the government says:

Although Stevens knowingly carried debt on a $31,000 interest-free loan from his personal friend for more than 10 months during 2001, Stevens did not list such a liability on his 2001 disclosure form.

But hell, maybe the constitutional separation of powers allows that as well.

Stevens: I Am Above the Law

Mike Lillis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:42:24 GMT

Ahh, to have the temerity of Ted Stevens…

Yesterday, lawyers for the embattled Alaska Republican filed a handful of court motions asking that the indictments against him be dismissed. The most notable of them reasons that Stevens is not subject to prosecution for failing to disclose gifts because -- get this - the Constitution doesn't allow it. That's right, the separation of powers clause, the lawyers argue, deems Stevens immune from laws he broke while exercising his legislative duties.

ABC News has an excerpt of the filing:

"Only the Senate may discipline a senator for violating Senate rules and Congress cannot delegate that authority to the executive branch. This prosecution [therefore] cannot proceed and the indictment should be dismissed."

If a recent ruling in a similar saga is any premonition, Stevens might want to take another tack. Just yesterday, a U.S. district judge shot down an argument from Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) -- who faces racketeering charges -- that the indictment should be dismissed on separation of powers' grounds. Go figure.

Despite Pelosi Flip-Flop on Drilling Vote, GOP Energy Revolt Continues

Mike Lillis — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:39:04 GMT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) this week might have softened her opposition to an offshore drilling vote, but GOP leaders want to see some proof of sincerity. From a Tuesday statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio):

If you meant what you said last night, we welcome you and your Democratic colleagues to join us in our historic call to action on American energy. End your five-week break early and call Congress back into session now so we can vote for more American-made energy and lower gas prices without any further delay.

Republicans are pushing for a vote on their own energy bill -- the American Energy Act -- which would remove the congressional moratorium on new offshore drilling and open protected areas of Alaska for exploration. Democrats, however, will want to place more emphasis on the development of renewable fuels and other party priorities, some of which are hardly popular with the oil industry. That could include controversial "use it or lose it" language, The Hill reported last night, which pushes oil companies to produce more quickly on leased lands or lose those leases.

With more than three weeks remaining in Congress's vacation, there's plenty of time left for jockeying. What happens in September, at this point, is anyone's guess. But you can bet that environmentalists are more than a bit nervous about how this saga ends. After all, Democrats have a record this year of caving on issues dear to the hearts of liberal voters.

Big Oil Ties Could Hurt GOP

Mike Lillis — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:05:48 GMT

Monday night, after weeks of pressure from Republicans to lift a federal moratorium on new offshore oil drilling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) abandoned her adamant resistance, indicating that she's now open to a vote on expanding exploration.

"[Republicans] have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas," Pelosi told CNN's Larry King late Monday. "Well, we can do that. We can have a vote on that. But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and not just a hoax on them."

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The sharp change of position arrives as Republicans, who face a potentially disastrous November election, think they've found a lifeline in offshore drilling. Indeed, with gas prices near historic highs, polls indicate that most Americans now support more drilling. In a continuing Capitol Hill revolt, dozens of House Republicans have circulated through Washington over Congress's August vacation, taking to the dim and empty chamber floor with demands that Pelosi call a vote on the controversial measure.

The Republicans hope to portray the Democrats as the party of callousness on the issue of towering gas prices. In retaliation, Democrats accuse the GOP of cozying up to big oil interests. The debate has evolved into a blame-game over which side is blocking the process -- and which is fighting hardest for the needs of constituents.

Yet if a Republican primary in Tennessee last week is any indication, GOP leaders might want to reconsider their strategy. In an upset victory Thursday, GOP challenger Phil Roe defeated freshman Rep. David Davis in a contest where Roe portrayed the incumbent -- one of the House Republicans giving energy speeches -- as an oil company minion. It marked the first primary defeat for a Tennessee incumbent of either party in 40 years. Many political experts say the Republicans' defense of the thriving oil industry may haunt other GOP candidates in November.

Rep. David Davis (U.S. Congress)

"Offshore drilling is by no means a big winner," said Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. "Being seen as in the pockets of big oil is not where you want to be as a candidate."

"I do believe that it's a seismic event in Congress," David L. Epstein, political science professor at Columbia University, said of Davis's loss, "and everyone in Washington has taken notice. It certainly could be a harbinger of things to come."

During the primary, Roe, the conservative mayor of Johnson City in eastern Tennessee, attacked Davis for accepting donations from oil company political action committees, even as gas prices were soaring and the companies' profits were at historic heights. Roe had refused PAC money throughout the campaign.

Challenger Phil Roe (Campaign photo)

"While East Tennesseans have been struggling with out-of-control gas prices," one TV ad charged, "David Davis has pocketed thousands from oil companies. Why is 'Big Oil' trying to buy our seat in Congress, and why is Davis accepting their cash?"

Anthony J. Nownes, political science professor at the University of Tennessee, said that it's tough to gauge the absolute effect of the oil campaign on the primary, but considering the outcome it probably helped Roe.

"You would think that in a Republican primary attacking your opponent as a fan of big business would not work," Nownes wrote in an email. "But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding."

Other factors, of course, were also at play. Nownes described Roe as "a credible challenger," with both money and name recognition feeding his chances. Jamie Osborne, a consultant for the Roe campaign, downplayed the effect of the oil debate on the election, saying it was just one of many deciding issues.

"It was a way to cue people into the differences between the candidates over influence and money," Osborne said. "To say [the election] was a referendum on big oil, I would say, is a stretch."

Indeed, though Roe's attacks highlighted Davis's association with oil companies, Roe also supports a drilling expansion as part of a broader energy strategy, Osborne said. The distinction was not between attitudes toward big oil, but in each candidate's stand on corporate donations.

In the 2008 election cycle, Davis accepted $9,000 from oil and gas interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign watchdog group. Roe took in $1,500 from the same industry, though not from any PACs.

"The anti-PAC stance is what resonated," Osborne said.

The issue of offshore drilling has dominated the domestic political debate over the last few weeks, dividing lawmakers along mostly partisan lines. Republicans have argued that removing the moratorium on new drilling will lower prices at the pump. Pelosi has pushed instead to tap the government's emergency reserves and increase funding for the development of alternative fuels.

Bolstering Pelosi's position, a report from the Energy Information Admin., a branch of the Energy Dept., issued a report last year revealing that expanded offshore drilling would have no significant effect on domestic production or fuel prices before 2030. Yet Democrats have had a tough time convincing the public of this. One recent national poll put support for increased drilling at 69 percent.

The drilling debate has also gained traction on the presidential campaign trail, where both Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are trumpeting plans for energy independence. Not doing Pelosi any favors, Obama said last month that he would support some expanded drilling if it were wrapped up in a larger energy reform package -- a stance Pelosi said Monday she would not rule out herself.

"That is not excluded," she told King.

House GOP leaders on Tuesday welcomed Pelosi's comments, but have vowed to continue their empty-chamber revolt until a drilling vote is called.

Putting more pressure on Pelosi and Democratic leaders, the congressional moratorium on new drilling expires at the end of September, meaning lawmakers would have to extend it before leaving Washington for the year. GOP leaders have threatened to shut down the federal government if the expanded offshore drilling doesn't come up for a vote next month.

Nownes said the combination of factors seems to predict some drilling expansion this year.

"The Republicans are vulnerable … to the charge that this move will enrich the oil companies but have no discernible impact on prices," said Nownes of the U. of Tennessee. "But in the end, I think the Republicans will win this one. Obama has already softened his stance on the issue, and many Democrats in Congress will go along. I think we are in store for more drilling, no matter what happens."

Much will hinge, however, on the price of gas in September, when Congress returns to Washington -- not to mention how the issue is ultimately digested by voters. Some experts say the lines in the debate were drawn long ago.

"People who aren't already committed Republicans," said Jacobson of UC-San Diego, "aren't going to see this as a solution to their energy problems."

How's This for an Idea?

Mike Lillis — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:03:10 GMT

Could it be that the Paul Wolfowitz plan for rebuilding Iraq will finally have its day? Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced today that he'll soon unveil legislation to rescind $10 billion in unspent Iraq reconstruction funding to be used instead to develop alternative fuels at home.

The call comes in the wake of last week's GAO report revealing that Iraq is only spending a fraction of its oil revenues on infrastructure projects, leaving a vast bulk of the responsibility to the American taxpayer (actually, to the kids of the American taxpayer, but that's a different story). The report found that Iraq's revenue surplus could reach $50 billion in 2008 -- clearly enough to divert the unspent U.S. funds.

"Iraq doesn't need the money, but we do," Dorgan said in a statement. "Iraq is making big profits on its oil sales and we're still paying the bill for their reconstruction projects. That makes no sense to me."

Dorgan says he'll introduce the bill the same day that Congress returns from its month-long August vacation. Not that this is likely to get anywhere anytime soon, but at least the concept, it appears, is finally feasible.

More Than A Division's Worth Of Mercenaries In Iraq

Spencer Ackerman — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:27:41 GMT

Via Andrew Tilghman at TPMm, the Congressional Budget Office has identified over a division's worth of private security contractors working in Iraq:

Total spending by the U.S. government and other contractors for security provided by contractors in Iraq from 2003 through 2007 was between $6 billion and $10 billion, CBO estimates. As of early 2008, approximately 25,000 to 30,000 employees of private security contractors were operating in Iraq. Those contractors worked for the U.S. government, the Iraqi government, other contractors, and other customers. private security contractors (PSCs).

Now, the report doesn't break it down further. Just because someone's an employee of a PSC doesn't mean s/he's performing mercenary quasi-combat functions. Could be a driver or something. But still -- that's a lot of private security contractors.

Benchmark For Progress? $100 Billion Spent On Iraq War Contracts

Matthew Blake — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:22:52 GMT

So says the New York Times' James Risen, who got the figures from a Congressional Budget Office study to be released today. The study also finds that about 20 percent of the funding for the Iraq war goes to government contractors, who, at about 180,000, outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq.

The percentage could even be higher, though, as Pentagon money for war contractors has been notoriously difficult to audit.

Congressional scrutiny of Iraq war contracting has so far occurred on a scandal-by-scandal basis. A broader wartime contracting commission, which will oversee all war-related contracts from those that provide support to Iraq security forces to repairing the country's infrastructure, recently named seven of eight commission members -- including nominees by the President and House GOP leadership. The commission, which was proposed last year by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), could shed light on how the reliance on private companies has affected U.S. troops in Iraq and the country's livelihood.

This Week In John Conyers' Pursuit of Karl Rove

Matthew Blake — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:25:31 GMT

Congress may be in recess, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) isn't taking a vacation from his enduring probe of Karl Rove's role in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Today Conyers wrote a letter (pdf) requesting that the Republican National Committee hand over all documents related to Siegelman, including emails sent between the RNC and the White House. He also requested documents and emails subpoenaed by the RNC in their investigation of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Conyers' letter follows last week's ruling, which limited the right of White House officials to invoke claims of executive privilege. District Judge John Bates ruled that White House officials are not "totally immune from ever having to respond to congressional testimony" when subpoenaed. Even when the president has asserted executive privilege, officials must appear before Congress and, when appropriate, invoke executive privilege. Bates also ruled that officials must give a specific description of subpoenaed documents they're withholding based on executive privilege.

Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney active in the state Republican Party, told the Judiciary Committee last year that Karl Rove ordered the Justice Department to re-open a bribery probe into Siegelman, which ultimately resulted in a dubious conviction. After nearly a year of evasions based on a claim to executive privilege, Rove denied involvement in Siegelman's prosecution in a written statement two weeks ago, but he has not done the same in sworn, public testimony. His statement did not prevent the committee from holding him in criminal contempt.

Conyers argues that if President Bush is allowing Rove to answer written questions about the Siegelman prosecution, then what's wrong with producing a few emails?

Conyers is giving the RNC a week to respond. Rove, meanwhile, has a month to decide if he will appear before the judiciary committee, which will almost certainly subpoena the "boy genius" when it reconvenes.

And On the Fifth Day, Republicans Were Still Talking to Themselves

Mike Lillis — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:08:00 GMT

Today marks day five of the GOP's empty-chamber self-debate over high fuel prices. For anyone who's been vacationing on Jupiter, the Republicans are calling on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bring Congress back to Washington to vote on an expansion of offshore drilling. Nevermind that experts and independent analyses indicate that increased drilling would have no immediate effect on prices at the pump, the public is growing weary of $4-a-gallon gas, and the GOP's drilling push is gaining momentum.

Although the debate to this point has revolved around fuel costs and environmental impact, there's another facet of this argument that, unfortunately, has gone largely ignored: That's the long-term damage that an oil-based energy model promises to wreak on the U.S. economy. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman pointed out last week:

Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuels, can see that clean renewable energy -- wind, solar, nuclear and stuff we haven't yet invented -- is going to be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going to grow in a stable way.

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power industry is going to most own the next great technology breakthrough -- the E.T. revolution, the energy technology revolution -- and create millions of jobs and thousands of new businesses, just like the I.T. revolution did.

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric typewriters -- and forget about these things called the "PC" and "the Internet." It is a strategy for making America a second-rate power and economy.

Don't look for the inanity to end anytime soon. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed yesterday that the GOP revolt will continue right up to the Democratic convention.

Congress from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

﻿Stingy Republicans Hurting GOP Ad Efforts

Waxman v. Stephen Johnson, Clean Water Act Edition

﻿Report: Tubbs Jones Dead at Age 58

﻿Tubbs Jones Hospitalized After Aneurysm

﻿New Documentary: a Testimony to Washington Prodigality