Steny Hoyer

CIA’s Lies About Secret Program Should Have Congress In Open Revolt

dlindorff — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:04:06 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

If this were the democracy that the Founding Fathers thought they
were creating, word from CIA Director Leon Panetta that his agency had
lied to Congress and specifically that it had lied repeatedly from
9-11-2001 through the end of 2008 concerning an as-yet undisclosed
secret program, would have virtually every member of Congress in a
state of rebellion, demanding answers.

After all, the CIA is required by law to report to at least the
majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees and to the majority and minority leaders of both houses of
Congress about such things.

But not only did the spy agency not report on what it was up to; it lied about what it was up to.

Now, given what we do know about the Bush/Cheney
administration—that it initiated a massive campaign of spying on
Americans by the Defense Department, the FBI, and the National Security
Agency, as well as other intelligence agencies, that it initiated a
campaign of torture of captives, including American citizens, while
asserting that the President didn’t even need to notify the courts or
the public about the arrest, detention, torture or even execution of an
American citizen if he, acting on his own, deemed that person to be an
“enemy combatant,” and given that we also know that Bush and Cheney
lied repeatedly about the justification for their invasion of Iraq, and
refused to be put under oath in their “interviews” by the 9-11
Commission, you would think the members of Congress, which was
railroaded into supporting everything from the USA PATRIOT Act to the
Iraq War invasion based on all these lies and deceptions, would be
demanding answers regarding this mysterious program.

For the rest of this story, please go to: www.thiscantbehappening.net
_________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest
book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work
is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Steny Hoyer's Agenda for 2009

Bob Fertik — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:50:44 -0500

Steny Hoyer outlined his agenda to the National Press Club today:

In the next Congress, our first focus must be on efforts to restore the health of our economy. They will include funding to create jobs by rebuilding our worn-down infrastructure, for roads, bridges, pipes, tracks that serve our communities and our commerce.

In addition, we must ensure that all of our people have access to broadband.

Economic recovery will also mean helping hard-pressed states with federal Medicaid assistance so that workers who have lost their jobs and their health insurance will still have access to health care.

Conditions also warrant temporarily increasing food stamp benefits and extending unemployment insurance. Those measures do not just help those who are hurting most; economists consider them some of the most efficient kinds of stimulus.

It was our hope that we could do this, this week. That does not appear to be the case. Senator Reid does not believe that that is possible in the Senate. We will see.

We will continue to be committed to the principle of pay-as-you-go, as well. The reality, however, is that recovery legislation will raise the deficit in the short term. Fiscal hawk that I am, I still believe that that is the right course, because a wide consensus of economists tells us that deficit spending is both the way out of recession like this one and the way to prevent even more catastrophic decline.

In the long run, fiscal responsibility can and must be a watchword of our majority. For eight years, the administration lived by the proposition summed up by Vice President Cheney when he said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

Businesses, consumers pursued that siren song to the brink of financial destruction, and some, of course, have gone over that brink. We are now experiencing the stark, painful reality that debt does, indeed, matter.

I’ve always believed that fiscal responsibility is at heart a moral proposition. It means that we do not indebt our children to finance our own immediate demands and desires.

It means that we must pay for what we buy, but more than that, we must buy the right things. Wise investments will grow our economy, guard our national security, and protect the health of our people.

Smart spending can help us get back to long-term fiscal health. Spending wisely today can save us money tomorrow. That is why our country needs far-reaching proposals, even in this recession.

In the broad sense, fiscal responsibility should be at the core of our entire governing philosophy. On energy, for instance, a fiscally responsible strategy should invest in new technologies to bring the price of energy down in the long term, because there is nothing more short-sided than acting as if our foreign oil addiction is a problem only when gas costs more than $3 a gallon or only during on oil shortage or only over the summer.

Ending that addiction would halt what T. Boone Pickens rightly calls the greatest transfer of wealth in human history from America to the petro-states of the Middle East.

Our energy policy must also include long-term investment to modernize our national grid. If we fail to match 21st-century energy technology with 21st-century distribution capability, we will waste energy and money every day.

On global warming, one of the critical issues we will confront early in this session, inaction will cost us greatly -- inaction will cost us greatly and is not an option.

The latest research from the National Resources Defense Council estimates that the total cost of global warming from impacts like hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product. The longer we wait to act on emissions, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be.

When it comes to defense, one of our most pressing priorities is rebuilding our Armed Forces, which have been worn down by years of war. Failing to go restore readiness will jeopardize our security in the short term, but financing it with even more debt will threaten our ability to support a world-class military in the long term.

That is why we must help phase out wasteful spending that contributes little to our nation’s safety.

As a senior Pentagon advisory group wrote, and I quote, “We cannot reset the current force, modernize, and transform at the same time. Choices must be made.” We must be prepared to make those choices, confident that wise defense spending is the best security.

On health care, fiscal responsibility will mean investing in information technology to help make our health care system more efficient. It will mean supporting efforts to ground medical decisions in statistical and empirical data, as the odd bedfellows John Kerry and Newt Gingrich argued in a recent piece in the New York Times, and it will mean expanding access, because the highly inefficient way in which Americans pay for health care is harming businesses, productivity, and imposing huge costs on them during a recession.

As Kerry and Gingrich point out, and I quote, “The United States spends more than twice as much per capita on health care compared to almost every other country in the world and with worse health results and quality than most industrialized nations.”

From that perspective, the most wasteful alternative is doing nothing.

Health care is an urgent priority. President-elect Obama has indicated that; Senator Kennedy has indicated it; Senator Baucus, Chairman Dingell, Mr. Waxman, and others have all indicated that conclusion.

Health care, although an urgent priority -- and we must move on it with dispatch -- but doing it right will be far more important than doing it within an arbitrary timeframe. A consensus of the American people on how on health care is critical to our ultimate success.

Finally, we have a window to truly set our fiscal house in order, ensuring the public and the markets that, even as we make necessary investments today, we are prepared for the years to come. A key priority in the next Congress must be entitlement reform, as well.

The term itself is a little bit misleading. When it comes to health care, we can no longer think of entitlement reform and expanded access as two separate issues. In fact, they are two facets of the same issue.

We will never be able to cut the cost of Medicare and Medicaid as long as they are serving unhealthy patients, as long as they are the first consistent source of insurance for tens of millions of Americans. But even with expanded access to health care and even with savings on Medicare and Medicaid, we still will have to make tough choices on entitlements. But making them we must. The longer we put these choices off, the more our priorities and our possibility -- and possibilities will be constrained, year after year. So let us face those choices sooner rather than later.

On Social Security, the path of reform is, relatively speaking, more easily defined, but we will need a bipartisan consensus to move forward. But now that privatization is essentially off the table, that will be, I hope, possible.

Helping to reform Social Security would be an excellent way for Republicans, in my opinion, to demonstrate that they’re serious about working towards solutions that are politically doable and fiscally responsible, not just ideologically defining.

As I’ve said, governing as a national majority does not mean simply setting modest, middling goals; it means ambitious goals, pursued thoughtfully, with time taken to win arguments and build the agreement that has so far eluded us.

As our next president said at Grant Park, and I quote, “While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.”

I believe the president said that in a considered and determined way. I believe that’s his intent; it must be ours, as well.

Now our work is to turn from promise to progress, from speeches to statute. We will take counsel from every part of our party, from our Republican colleagues and from the White House, and we will then work to make concrete the change that America has chosen.

Four years ago, the last time a party won control of the presidency and the Congress, President Bush reflected on his victory and said this. Quote, “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the elections.”

But that was an incomplete observation, in my opinion. We know what happens to a party that thinks it’s only accountable once, because no election delivers a blank check. In truth, elections give us something subtler, a chance to earn the confidence of the people we serve, a chance to build on our vision for this country, brick by brick, an accountability moment that comes again and again.

That’s what elections give us: the opportunity to effect change. In partnership with the American people and with all of our colleagues in the Congress, we will embrace this opportunity, the chance for a nation to be renewed and reaffirmed.

I know the speaker and I, the leadership in the Democratic Party, the new members of the House and the Senate welcome that challenge and welcome the opportunity to work together to effect the change that was voted for on November 4th.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: Mr. Hoyer, could you articulate a little bit -- a little bit more on the energy objectives for the 111th Congress, at least in the House? And in particular, would you advocate or support a restoration of the off-shore drilling ban?

HOYER: I think the -- first of all, overall, I’ve mentioned global warming. Obviously, I think there is a consensus certainly in our party and between the administration that we must address that issue, we must address it in a decisive and effective way to substantially reduce the carbon footprint and to address the global warming crisis that confronts us.

As you know, Chairman Dingell has put out, along with Rick Boucher , a proposal. As you know, 115 Democrats, led by Jay Inslee and others, have put out another proposal.

There will be extensive discussions on how to effect the reductions that we seek, both in the short term and to the half- century mark.

So I think we will proceed on that with, as I said, dispatch. There is not a timeframe for that, but we’ll proceed on that.

Secondly, we will defend the legislation that was passed last year and the energy bill, as well, which effects greater efficiencies in automobiles. We have proposed and adopted a loan guarantee program, as you know, of $25 billion to effect the retooling of the automobile industry to provide for efficient technologically efficient automobiles. We’ll continue to support that.

And we’ll work with our Senate colleagues to look towards expanding the reliance on alternative energy sources, we believe -- renewables and alternatives.

We believe it is absolutely essential to have an energy policy which is, as I said in my speech, not driven by the temporary reduction of prices at the pump, which are hard to explain, hard to explain how you go down about half within a very short period of time and spike up in that short period of time, as well.

Now, as it relates to the moratoria, which was not renewed, as you know, in the continuing resolution which was passed in the latter part of September, I think there will be efforts to look at further ways to delineate areas available for drilling.

I do not believe at this point in time that there are any proposals being made to reinstate the moratoria across the board.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, you’ve been devoted to Congress and government your whole life. Despite the many bipartisan bills of the last Congress and the polls now with high support and hope for Obama, those numbers are the opposite of the 12 percent to 23 percent favorable ratings for Congress, lower than Bush and the lowest in history. If the Republicans continue to obstruct and claim one-party rule, which is pretty predictable, what can you and the leadership do to restore respect for Congress so it’s not just a legislative grinder, but an institution respected by Americans?

HOYER: Well, of course, let me, first of all, observe why I think the numbers for Congress are so low. There was, of course, a contradiction in the numbers, as well. Those contradictions I’ve discussed with a number of members of the press.

First, the numbers are low for Congress. Secondly, the numbers to have Democrats running the Congress were high, relatively speaking, in the polling data prior to the election.

We have now done something that’s historic, hasn’t been done since 1932, and that is expand our majority in two elections in a row to now over 50 new members in the last two elections.

That is an historic accomplishment; with it is an historic responsibility.

We will restore the numbers for Congress generically, which does not have generic support. There are -- nobody going around and saying, “I love the Congress.”

And as a matter of fact, people are inundated in every congressional district with ads that say specifically the opposite, “I’m going it reform Congress; I’m going to make Congress better; we’re going to restore integrity to Congress.” Both sides do that, and the people watch these ads, and they take it for granted that what they mean is Congress is not so hot.

The way we will restore that is action, accomplishment. We have now the context in which that can be done. We have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress who largely agree on the directions that we ought to go.

If, in fact, we effect that change, then I think the country will reflect the respect -- a restored respect for Congress as a result of its product.

What I think the low numbers reflect is the fact that America believes that the country is going in the wrong direction. The election reflected the affirmation of that polling data. And, as a result, they looked to the policymakers -- that is, the Congress of the United States -- as not doing its job. They were largely correct in that.

Not that we didn’t do our job -- that is to say, in the House of Representatives, we passed most -- almost all of the legislation that we said we wanted to pass dealing with the economy, dealing with fiscal responsibility, dealing with energy, dealing with restoring our economy.

But we fell too often on the shoals of obstructionism and the failure to get 40 votes in the United States Senate. I’m hopeful that, whatever the number is in the United States Senate, 56, 57, 58, 59 -- 60, I suppose, is possible, mathematically, probably not probable -- that we will pick up a number of Republicans who themselves will want to see action after having reached consensus.

I think that’s possible and hope that will happen. And I think the numbers will improve if we produce product that make the country feel better and be better.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, thank you. President Clinton found out that when -- just because he was in the White House and had the party -- his party in control of Congress didn’t necessarily mean he was going to get everything he wanted.

Is this president-elect doomed to repeat the same lesson? And is there anything about this transition that gives you more confidence that the dissension we’re used to seeing in the Democratic ranks won’t erupt this time?

HOYER: Let me say that there is a difference in ‘09 and ‘10 than ‘93 and ‘94. And the difference was 12 years in the wilderness, 12 years in the minority.

We had been in the majority for 38 years in ‘93 and ‘94. And there was a sense that we would perhaps always be in the majority. And, therefore, I think we did not focus enough on reaching consensus, not only within the Congress, but also between the president and the Congress.

Although we were successful in that Congress, and we adopted an economic program that had no Republican support and the public was not very convinced it was the right thing to do, but as the years went by, it helped produce four years of surplus, which had not been done in the lifetime of anybody in this room before that, so that the program that was adopted economically and some of the other programs that were adopted and sent to the president to sign made real progress in our country.

But I think we understand President Obama, who has demonstrated a keen awareness and grasp of the challenges and of ways and means forward -- I think that’s why he was elected. I think he projected confidence and engendered confidence, and I think he’ll continue to do so.

I also think that the administration, many of them went through the ‘93, ‘94 period, as I did, as many of us in Congress went through, including the speaker and myself, and will understand the necessity for consensus and the necessity to build public support. And I think we’ll do that.

QUESTION: I think you didn’t mention immigration reform in your speech. I’m wondering if you’re ruling out considering it in the first year of the next Congress, despite the fact that Mr. Obama promised to do something within that time period?

And since you mentioned that the Republicans are moving to a more narrower agenda, what are the real chances of passing immigration reform next year, this -- yes, next year?

HOYER: Well, I think that we -- surprisingly, immigration was not a major issue, as we know, in this last presidential campaign. It was an issue, and it remains an issue, and it remains a challenge for us in this country.

But I think -- I don’t know specifically what the conversations were between Mr. -- Senator McCain and Senator Obama yesterday, but, clearly, I think one of the reasons it wasn’t a major issue is because Senator McCain and Senator Obama had similar views on comprehensive immigration reform.

I think that it is interesting that you have the Chamber of Commerce agreeing more with the Democratic position and the McCain position on comprehensive reform than many Republicans in the House and in the Senate.

I think President Obama will want to move forward on that; I think we want to move forward on that.

I think there are two premises, number one, that our nation must be secure, our borders must be secure, and those who come into the United States need to be those that we know are coming into the United States and are authorized to come into the United States.

Secondly, the premise is that we have a large number, in the millions, of people who are here who are working essentially or operating essentially under the table, out of sight. That’s not good for our economy; it’s not good for them; and it’s not realistic, we think, to take effort to kick all of them out. That’s not possible, nor is it advisable.

So I think the answer to your question is that that, although I didn’t mention in my speech, will certainly be an item on the agenda, but it will not be the first item on the agenda. The economy will be the first item on the agenda.

And as President Obama -- President-elect Obama said the other night, also first -- I think we’ve got two tracks at the same time -- will be ensuring America’s security.

As President-elect Obama observed last night, and as Senator Biden -- much was made in the television ads about that, as Senator Biden observed, it is a time of risk when you have a transition and you are tested by those who would wish you harm.

So I think those two items will be priorities. But I think that immigration certainly is on the agenda.

QUESTION: You’ve advocated for many, many years about -- for federal employees and been -- been somewhat critical of the current administration in regards to the way that federal employees are -- are treated.

Could you talk to me, sir, about what your hopes are for the -- for federal workers under the Obama administration and talk about maybe some of your hopes for what you hope to accomplish on -- on the Hill for -- for federal workers?

HOYER: Well, we have been very successful with federal workers, as you know, notwithstanding the administration’s position. We even came to a point this year where the president submitted a budget which adopted the congressional premise of parity between the military and civilian pay treatment.

That was effected this year by the Congress. We -- we increased by some measure the recommendation of the president.

Other items that I have proposed and will be working with President-elect Obama, at a time of energy crisis, the state of Utah and others have adopted a premise that I think makes sense, and that is to make more available the opportunity for a longer day, but maybe a four-day workweek, with a 10-hour day as opposed to an 8-hour day.

And you could take a quarter or thereabouts -- maybe a little less than that -- or a fifth, 20 percent, off the road in the Washington metropolitan every day. That would be an energy savings, a time savings. It would affect, I think, as efficient a workforce as we now have.

And initially, the Office of Personnel Management, as you know, responded relatively negatively to that proposal, but subsequently, when I pointed out that their own office had issued a regulation or an advisory which seemed to encourage a similar step, they’ve become more moderate on their view on that issue, and I hope to pursue that with the Obama administration.

I’ve also had a proposal in for a number of years, as health care costs have escalated, for a greater contribution by the federal government towards the health care of -- health insurance of our employees.

They now pay about an average of 73 percent -- excuse me, the government pays an average of 73 percent, and I’ve suggested we go to 80 percent, and that has been a bipartisan proposal in the Washington metropolitan area and around the country. We have bipartisan support for that.

So there was a couple of things that I’m going to pursue.

QUESTION: You know that the White House and the Republicans want to use the $25 billion in energy retooling loans for the auto companies instead of TARP money. If the situation for the automakers is as dire as they say it is, why not just go ahead and do that and then authorize or re-allocate the $25 billion in energy loans next year?

HOYER: The -- one of the reasons not to do that is, if the premise is we’re going to do $50 billion anyway, and I think that -- the question’s underlying premise is that we’re going to do that or would do that under your suggestion, we have in hand a piece of legislation that we have passed providing for retooling, providing for technology advances in retooling to provide for the production of different and more efficient automobiles. That’s in place. We don’t think there’s any need to repeal that in order to move forward with the automobile companies.

We, therefore, are suggesting that we not have $25 billion new dollars, but take $25 billion out of the $700 billion that was appropriated for the purposes -- or authorized for the purposes of the troubled assets recovery program, which, of course, are now not so much troubled assets as they are opportunity investments, I’ll put it that way.

I’m pleased that some of you are here. Mr. Paulson, I know Secretary Paulson is testifying before our committee, but we discussed that briefly yesterday.

So our position is simply that that really is a distinction without a difference. If you -- unless you believe that we’re going to kill the technology program, which we’re not going to do, then it seems to be not a worthwhile effort of repealing a program that’s already been passed, signed by the president, into law.

And what we simply ought to do is take $25 billion of the $700 billion and apply that to stabilize the automobile companies in the short term.

QUESTION: If I could follow up on that, what is your sense that there will be some sort of compromises this week on the auto industry package?

HOYER: Well, we -- we -- we hope that there will be. Senator Reid is not very confident of that. I think we could pass something through the House of Representatives. As you know, the Senate began its efforts yesterday.

The base bill being the extension of the unemployment insurance that we passed before we left and broke for the election. We hope that the automobile provision will be added to that bill and sent over to us, in which case we will have the opportunity to pass it.

But it really is contingent upon whether or not Senator Reid can get the requisite number of votes. We would hope we could work with the administration.

The administration, as pointed out in the previous question, has taken the position that we just ought to use the $25 billion in section 136, which is the section that sets up that particular $25 billion for the technology retooling, for the industry.

But we’re hopeful that the Senate can come to an agreement. And we’re prepared to work with the White House and with the Senate, with our Republican colleagues, to try to come to such an agreement.

The White House is now, as I understand -- what Ms. Perino said yesterday -- willing to -- they want to help the automobile companies. It’s just a question of how. Hopefully we can reach that. Of course, I think there seems to be a growing consensus that that’s necessary.

QUESTION: And if we don’t get an agreement this week, does that mean this process continues into December in a possible -- possible lame-duck?

HOYER: Possible. Possible.

QUESTION: Well, first, before my question, could you expand on the idea of going to December. And then, second, can you looking into the...

HOYER: You have a personal concern about that?

QUESTION: Yes, a very personal concern.

HOYER: So do 434 colleagues.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) on the question of PAYGO, you mentioned doing health care and doing it right being more important, but can you address the growing sense in the...

HOYER: I just -- let me just clarify. I discussed doing it right not in the context of PAYGO, but in the context of doing it right rather than doing it within a set timeframe.

QUESTION: Let me put it in the context of PAYGO.

HOYER: OK.

QUESTION: There does seem to be -- you know, every time a large- ticket item comes along, a reason not to do it in PAYGO, not just according to Senate Republicans, but according to many people in the Democratic Party.

Your point person, you would say, on health care reform, Pete Stark , has said he doesn’t think and has been talking to Blue Dogs -- he doesn’t think you need to do -- or abide by PAYGO for either the position of reimbursement or health care reform in general.

So, I mean, is there -- is there really the political will to bring health care reform back, something that expensive, back under PAYGO?

HOYER: I think that there is the political will to ensure that, over a period of time, we have a plan in place that will get us to a PAYGO-compliant place.

Unfortunately, we have pursued such a fiscally irresponsible policy, where we’re going to have perhaps as much of a -- as a trillion dollar operating deficit in fiscal year ‘09, that we have been put in a very, very difficult place.

As I said, there are some things that we need to do which will have effective savings, not immediately, and may not be immediately PAYGO-compliant.

All the economists we talk to -- Alice Rivlin, in particular -- says that, in the short term, we may not be able to comply with PAYGO, but we must comply with PAYGO in the longer term, which is to say, similar to dealing with the fiscal -- excuse me, the financial crisis that confronts our country, the economic crisis that confronted our country, we did not believe it was appropriate to try to stimulate and depress at the same time.

So I think the answer to your question is, our objective is going to be have a PAYGO-compliant policy over the longer term. That may not be possible in the short term, given where we are.

QUESTION: Would you go ahead with the reform? Do you -- would you go ahead with it, noncompliant in the short term?

HOYER: Yes, I think that we -- we believe that moving ahead on health care reform is critically important, as I said, not only within the context of making health care affordable and accessible to millions of people who do not now have that access, but also in terms of making our system more efficient and less costly.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, I’d like to follow up on an earlier question, with E-Verify about to expire in the first week of March, when do you think Congress will reauthorize that legislation next year?

HOYER: Well, I think we want to move on that relatively quickly because it expires, but I don’t -- I have not talked to the chairman. I’ve asked all the chairmen to give me a list. As you know, I sort of coordinate the -- when we put things on the floor, but I coordinate with the chairmen when they have things ready to go to the floor.

So I have not yet gotten back from the chairmen their proposed schedules for next year. But certainly I think that will be an item that we will want to give early attention to. But I don’t know specifically when.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, how will Congress ensure accountability, transparency, and congressional oversight of existing and future bailouts? And sort of as a follow-up, will protection of federal and corporate whistleblowers be on the House’s must-do list?

HOYER: I think the latter question is, yes, that will be on our agenda.

On the first, on oversight, I think that all of you have seen our intent to have vigorous oversight during the last 45 days. We left at the end of September or early October. When was the first day we got out? The 29th, I think.

In any event, we’ve had a large number of hearings -- I think some 20 in all -- in that period of time, notwithstanding the election was ongoing. Mr. Frank, Mr. Dodd, both had significant oversight hearings. Mr. Waxman has had significant oversight hearings. And we intend to continue to do that.

We’ve met with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke on a number of occasions since that time. And last night, we raised the issue once again of transparency and oversight and accountability, which we believe are critically important given the status of the dollars and the status of the crisis.

So we have been pursuing that and will continue to do so.

And, as you know, we are still waiting -- Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell have two people to appoint to the legislatively created oversight, congressional oversight.

QUESTION: Good morning. This is going to be the first time in a while that we’ve had a president who comes from the legislative ranks. And I wondered if you could maybe talk a little bit about that dynamic.

I could see it being helpful to relations, but it may be also helpful if you all feel that you are entitled perhaps to more than you actually are, given that he is no longer one of you or will no longer be one of you. Tell me -- tell me a little bit more about that.

HOYER: Well, I’m not sure with the promise of that question is, as what we’re entitled to. We are, under Article I, the policymakers of this country. That’s what the founding fathers said; that’s what our Constitution sets forth. And, of course, President-elect Obama was elected to execute the policies of our country.

Now, having said that, we all realize that the president has, over the last century, become the principal policymaker, as well, and proposer of policy. And we expect that to continue.

But we are a coequal branch. Those of you who’ve heard me discuss in the first six years of the Bush administration, I said that it was a very complacent, complicit Congress that neglected its oversight and essentially would not pass anything that President Bush did not want to sign. And, therefore, he didn’t veto any bills, save one, that we passed in the last days of the -- those six years, stem- cell research.

The fact is that President-elect Obama I think is an extraordinary individual. And I think that’s why he was elected with a majority of the votes. I think he reflected to the American public a thoughtful, considered, consensus-seeking demeanor and intent.

And I think he’ll continue to be that way as president. He has his role as president. He has individual views as president. He was elected by all the people. We were elected in districts to represent, however, all of the people collectively. And I think we will come to an agreement.

I think the fact that he comes from the Senate will not necessarily make that much of a difference. I, frankly, think in my lifetime the only president that’s made a real difference is Lyndon Johnson, who had such a long career as the majority leader of the United States Senate and close relationships with members of Congress.

And, of course, he took the presidency at a time of national tragedy, and there was a tremendous consensus that action was -- that engendered action.

But other than that, I don’t think that the fact that he is -- comes from the United States Senate will make the difference. What will make the difference is his personality and his determination and ours to work together to effect the change that America wants.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that question, Mr. Hoyer?

HOYER: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you. In terms of working with the new...

HOYER: (inaudible) though.

QUESTION: ... the new Obama administration, will -- will the Democrats will you Democrats always be awaiting direction, suggestions from the administration, including areas where you want to act, as you described, on global warming or health? Or could you imagine situations where the Democratic-controlled Congress takes the initiative without a lot of guidance from the administration?

HOYER: Well, I certainly think there have been a lot of initiatives on the table over the last two years and for a longer period of time than that. And we have some very senior members of Congress and new members of Congress who have some very good ideas and thoughts as to where they want to take this country and how they want to respond to the challenges that confront the country. I think it’s our responsibility to initiate.

On the other hand, as I have said throughout my brief talk, the creation of consensus we believe is very important to move forward to actually make change happen.

You don’t get consensus without giving consideration to the president, the Congress, and, frankly, to the other side of the aisle. I think we’ll do that, and I think we’ll work together, and I think that’s the president-elect’s intention. I think it’s our intention. So we’ll work towards that end.

QUESTION: On the PAYGO issue, how -- how do you expect to square PAYGO with extending for the long term the tax cuts for people making less than $250,000?

HOYER: We’re going to have to -- again, let me make it -- reiterate. That’s going to be tough, and it’s certainly going to be perhaps not possible in the very -- in the short term, because we are in a position that has placed us in a very deep hole.

We’re also in a position where we need to do some things, notwithstanding the fact that we’re in that deep hole.

So the answer to your question is -- we’ve already talked to Mr. Furman, who, as you know, is advising and with whom I’ve worked before, talked to him about how we get from where we are to where we need to be. And we’re going to continue to discuss that. But, again, our overall objective is going to be pursuing a fiscally responsible policy, but within the framework of having to address certain critical issues in the short term.

QUESTION: What are your plans in terms of reinstating an off- shore ban on oil and gas drilling, number one? And then also the timing on climate change legislation, number two.

HOYER: I think I answered both those questions in response to your question. But having said that -- that’s all right.

Having said that, I don’t think there is any intent at this point in time -- there are no -- nobody is suggesting that we return to the same position we were in on September 28th or 27th or 26th.

But I think there will be real discussion on the parameters in which drilling will be pursued.

There was a GAO report out, by the way -- I think maybe some of you saw it not too long ago which raised the same question that we had raised about the 68 million acres that are currently authorized. Now, of course, all the acreage is open over -- outside the 3-mile or 12- mile limit.

So I think the answer to your question is, we’re going to be looking at parameters, not necessarily reinstatement of the existing moratoria prior to the president’s lifting it and then the restriction that was in -- in the interior appropriation bill of ‘08.

On your global warming, the timing is that there have been a number of proposals out. I think we will work with the president- elect, Obama, when he becomes president, to determine the timing.

Again, I want to stress I believe the economy and, as President Obama said, national security, ensuring during this transition period that we are secure as a nation and as a people will be the two main priorities to get immediate attention.

But I think global warming is certainly on the agenda for this year in the near -- near term.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, how high a priority is the Employee Free Choice Act? And on that bill, are you going to negotiate with Republicans?

HOYER: The Employee Free Choice Act is high up on our agenda. We passed it early in the last session. It languished in the Senate. We believe very strongly that employees have not only the right to organize and bargain collectively for pay and benefits and working conditions, but that our economy is better off when that happens.

We also believe that it’s been very difficult for employees to get elections. There have been great delays, not enforcement of -- by the NLRB of --- against unfair labor practices.

So we -- that’s an agenda high up on our -- that is an item high up on our agenda. And we will be giving attention early on.

Will we discuss with others their views, including Republicans and the administration, their views on that? The answer is yes; we will be discussing that. And there are obviously various different views on that issue, but we intend to pursue it.

QUESTION: Talking about the agenda, what do you see coming out of the gate? I mean, we’ve got the economy to work on. Where do you see the health care debate starting to come up? Can you talk a little bit about what your crystal ball timeframe is?

HOYER: In the short term, obviously, to some degree, it will be affected by what we’re able to do this week or in the next few weeks.

Senator Obama, as president-elect and as a candidate, and Democrats all talked about essentially four main components of a stimulus package that we think that members of the administration, or at least Chairman Bernanke has talked about the need for stimulus package, others have talked about. We think there’s a need for a stimulus package.

We passed a $61 billion package that was offered by Senator Reid and objected to by the Republicans during the last days of the session before the election. We still believe that’s important. If we can’t pass it now, then we will certainly -- that will be one of the early items on the agenda.

As you know, there are nine appropriation bills which have been included in the C.R. but need to be finally passed. That will be early up on our agenda.

Children’s health insurance, as you know, is an item that we feel very strongly about. And we passed it with 45 Republican votes in the House, 19 Republican votes in the Senate. Two-thirds in the Senate, we didn’t have -- we fell 12 votes short of two-thirds. That will be an item early up.

But those are -- and, of course, further actions on the economy, depending upon what the -- where we are with the auto companies and depending upon where we are with the rescue package at that point in time.

So it’s -- those will be the early items. Longer term, we’ve discussed a lot of the longer-term items already.

HILL: The woman with the laptop?

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you could expand...

(CROSSTALK)

HOYER: The one with the laptop. You will forever be known now as the one with the laptop.

QUESTION: If you could expand a little bit on the possibility for December -- a meeting in December and as part of the economic... (CROSSTALK)

HOYER: Chris, you got me down this road.

QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about extending the GSA and FHA loans?

HOYER: The -- what I have responded -- when I responded to Chris’ question, what -- he said, well, could it be done later? And the answer to that is yes. We do believe, as we have articulated, that dealing with the automobile crisis is a -- is a pressing need, not only in terms of the automobile industry, but also all of the related industries.

There was some debate about how many people we’re talking about, but we’re talking about a lot of people. Whatever the number is, we’re talking about a lot of people and great consequence to our economy.

What my response to Chris’ question simply said, that obviously we’re going to be back here, we think, in December, not necessarily in session, but, as you know, we had an economic conference two years ago as we started the session, which ultimately led to, as you know, the rescue -- the rebates in January, working hand in glove with the Republicans, overwhelming bipartisan action that we took, signed by the president.

We expect to have another one of those conferences the week of the 8th of December. So that is available -- as this week was available to us, we’re doing the organizing. This week was available to us, as well.

So I’m simply reflecting that we’re not -- the year has not ended. My expectation is the speaker and I will agree we’re not going to adjourn sine die if we have not completed our work. And it will be, as we said before, subject to the call of the chair.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, back to the automakers bailout, since we may be working with that later this week, over the weekend, Chairman Frank said that some of the strings that should be attached to the $25 billion would be the no one in management would make over $200,000. Do you think that the unions ought to also be required to make concessions? And if so, what should those concessions look like?

HOYER: Well, I’m not going to get into what concessions or constraints ought to be placed either on management or on labor.

But I will say that, obviously, Chairman Frank is looking at requirements that we not follow the same business model as has been followed which has led us to a place where we are not as successful in the auto industry in this country as we need to be. And there will be requirements for new models, reorganization, and requirements that such a plan be submitted in consideration of dollars received.

But I’m not going to get into specifics, because the bill hasn’t been reported out at this point in time. But, clearly, I think the unions have already had some renegotiations at this point in time. So it’s not as if they’ve been simply saying, “Well, you’re in trouble, and we’re not going to do anything.” They’ve already done some substantial things.

One of the reasons for the short term, as you know, there’s going to be a transfer of health care obligations next year. I believe it’s next year. And so there -- both sides have taken some steps. By the way, I think it’s $250,000, but be that as it may.

I think one of the things that we’ve been concerned about, as you know, as a Congress -- and I will tell you, taxpayers are very concerned about -- if they’re going to come up with money to try to stabilize enterprises, they don’t want to see their tax dollars used for large expenditures to people who have not led their corporations to very successful places.

They don’t want to see large handouts to people who retire in the millions and millions of dollars their tax dollars. That makes them very angry, rightfully so. And I understand Secretary Paulson shares that view.

QUESTION: There’s been some chatter, especially on editorial pages, about now that energy prices are way down...

HOYER: You can’t trust those editorial pages.

QUESTION: ... having a -- having a gasoline tax to fund some energy research and so on. Does that have any support in Congress?

HOYER: Oh, I think it’s fair to say it has some support in Congress. Whether it has -- that is not on the table. We’re not discussing that at this point in time.

I did read the Washington Post editorial on that effort. I think that clearly, as we look at -- and this is Steny Hoyer speaking. This is not any consensus. But as we look at the needs for infrastructure and we talk about PAYGO, we’re going to have to look at ways and means to pay for infrastructure improvement.

We’re also going to have to look at ways and means to ensure that we remain cognizant of the expense of our addiction to oil.

So I think there are obviously, as you know, members who believe that’s a way to go, but that’s not on the table at this point in time. There’s no discussion of that.

I say no discussion. There’s no formal proposal to do that, nor to, as Mr. Oberstar or anybody else indicated, that they intend to make that proposal in the -- in the near term.

I happen to believe, personally, that we’re going to have to look at ways and means to fund the absolutely essential infrastructure needs of this country.

HILL: I’m going to use the moderator’s prerogative to ask the final question. And it kind of piggybacks on Mr. Kondracke’s question.

In the area of energy independence, do think that President-elect Obama should make a Kennedy-esque statement that we will curtail all our oil imports in 10, 15 years?

HOYER: I don’t -- the answer to that question would be no. I don’t think you ought to make that definitive statement, because I’m not sure that that’s possible.

What is possible, however, is to very substantially reduce our reliance on petroleum products which will ultimately, for my great- granddaughter, perhaps, disappear. We don’t know. Maybe we’ll discover great new supplies.

But we do you know that we have a very substantial global warming problem that we need to seek alternative energy supplies. As T. Boone Pickens says, you know, we’ve got 3 percent of the supply, 25 percent of the demand. That’s not a sustainable policy for us.

So while I would not recommend that he make such a definitive statement, I think that he certainly has made a very strong statement about reaching the objective of energy independence and very substantial reduction of reliance on petroleum products.

And we talked about the $25 billion that we put for the technology retooling of the automobile industry to move to alternatively powered vehicles.

And, of course, one of the things that we need to look at, battery technology, and we need to have that here in the United States.

So all of those things are, I think, items that we believe are very important. We need to pursue them in the short term. I think President-elect Obama agrees with that proposition and will be pursuing that objective.

Thank you very much.

Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

dlindorff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:34:40 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power
held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged
farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a
grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both
testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and
of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the
enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation’s democracy
by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.

As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear
more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an
impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to
be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce
defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he
once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however
much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might
wish him to be.

At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the
most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors,
the fact that the session—technically an argument in defense of 36
articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)--was nonetheless a major victory for the
impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the
House in November 2006, that impeachment would be “off the table”
during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called
for such a limited hearing.

It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi’s backdown, peace
activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign
had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for
listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against
Pelosi in the Speaker’s home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has
been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. “Pelosi
is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on
impeachment,” said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. “It’s
just like her finally stating publicly that Bush’s presidency is a
failure—something it has taken her two years to come to, but which
we’ve been saying for years.”

So determined were Pelosi and Conyers to limit the scope and
intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s Rules of the
House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President,
which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including
witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied
or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich’s proposed articles
of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress
and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness
Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President
Ronald Reagan, to say he would reference his listing of crimes to the
“resident” of the White House.

In the end, the rule imposing a gag on calling the president a
criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi. A former
Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of
the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had “lied” the country into an
illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Shiela Jackson
Lee (D-TX) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in
invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with
an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public
monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party
to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office
staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few
dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the
Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary
Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain
in the hall or go to two remote “overflow” rooms to watch the
proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by
Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make
it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts
calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as
“signs”), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in
congressional hearing rooms.

It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.

It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.

At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former
representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth
Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky
Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former
Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan
Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams,
president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the
administration’s crimes and abuses of power—which included charges of
usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international
treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth
Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and
more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the
abuses were real and serious.

But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the
Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal
hearing, said, “No president has been removed from office through
impeachment.” He asked the witnesses, “How would you approach
impeachment today so it would be a viable option?”

Former Rep. Holtzman responded, “The real remedy to a president who
believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away
from that.” She said, “An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could
work. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work.”

The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others,
including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition
to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention
among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when
impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the
bulk of the Congress were against the idea. It was during the hearings
that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse
of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would
happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most
Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to
justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what
the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why
Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating
to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National
Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants!). They
don’t know the Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the
Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these
high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient
Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not
be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony
from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they
have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment
would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be
claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any
other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and
empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict
“constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time
backing presidential obstruction.

As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment,
because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”

Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought
in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law
and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to
argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official,
or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked
down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who made it
clear that what high crimes referred to were actions—even taken with
the noblest of intentions—that undermined the Constitution or abused
the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, “Impeachment has nothing
to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with
abuse of power which weakens the balance of power.”

In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any
kind—exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically
intended.

Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call
their bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even
Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, “We are not done yet, and we
do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that
Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve,” Rep.
Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment
(Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact
their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in
co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment
hearing.

They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and
national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of
impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even
reported on Friday’s hearing, even as a news “brief.” Those news
organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer,
that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles.
Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don’t even know it happened.

Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple
matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday’s
witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to
act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law—a felony, and
openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the
Congress, claiming a power—unitary executive authority—not even
mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known
about, and approved, “enhanced interrogation techniques” devised by his
subordinates—techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the
Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to
establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be
voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a
vote.

Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of
impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve
notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be
tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave
office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is
no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative
body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.

That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes
by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the
impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line.
Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make
Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment
proceeding.

As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian
candidate for president, told Friday’s hearing, “We had a nuclear clock
during the Cold War. In the ‘90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a
Constitution Clock.”

That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and
columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s
Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Victory on Wiretapping!

Bob Fertik — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:15:46 -0400

Thanks to your emails (over 58,000!) and calls, House Democrats once again stood up to Bush!

House Democrats stood up to endless televised rants by Bush, lying TV ads against key freshmen, and bullshit news articles and editorials throughout the Corporate Media.

Instead, Democrats carefully wrote a bill that will let telecom giants try to defend themselves against lawsuits by giving judges the power to review White House secrets.

Of course the battle isn't over. The House bill goes back to the Senate, where Jello Jay Rockefeller will once again try to gut the bill, and then to a conference committee full of BushDemocrats. But if House Democrats remain resolute and united - and we in the Netroots keep up the pressure - we can win this battle.

The key to victory in the House was genuine teamwork by Democrats!

The bill was co-sponsored by House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers and House Intelligence chair Sylvester Reyes, who presented a united front - unlike the Senate, where Intelligence chair Jay Rockefeller sabotaged Judiciary chair Pat Leahy. And the complex legislative process was carefully managed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Also, as mcjoan writes,

Particularly deserving of thanks, though, are those Freshman Dems who would not be intimidated by everything being thrown at them by the Republicans--the robocalls to their constituents saying they were with the terrorists, the deceitful and inflammatory Defense of Democracy's crazy television ads. Particularly of note are Mike Arcuri who managed the Rule on this vote, and Nancy Boyda, Carol Shea-Porter and others who stood on the floor during these debates and strongly stood up for our civil liberties. You can show your support for them here.

21 BushDemocrats tried to sabotage the effort, but Jane and Christy at FireDogLake launched a counterattack by raising money for ads against them. In the end, all but 6 BushDemocrats (Dan Boren-OK, Chris Carney-PA, Jim Cooper-TN, Tim Holden-PA, Nick Lampson-TX, and Heath Shuler-NC) tucked their tails between their legs and voted with the real Democrats. A key vote was Leonard Boswell (IA), whose deathbed conversion was motivated by primary challenger Ed Fallon.

Glenn Greenwald is right on target as always:

"It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.

Dumbest Democrat: Hoyer or Pelosi?

lynmarenjensen — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:12:40 -0400

I don't think Steny Hoyer is the dumbest Democrat in history. I think Nancy Pelosi is. As proof, I submit her, "If anyone can prove why Bush should be impeached" BS. If she doesn't know, then she has got to be the dumbest person in Washington DC at least.

Is Steny Hoyer the Stupidest Democrat in HISTORY?

Bob Fertik — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:26:48 -0400

Paul Kiel found this astonishing AP story:

A top Democratic leader opened the door Tuesday to granting U.S. telecommunications companies retroactive legal immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders, but said the Bush administration must first detail what those companies did.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Democrats introduced a draft version of the new law Tuesday _ without the immunity language.

"We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done, for which we've been asked to give immunity," Hoyer said.

If this report is accurate, Steny Hoyer has just proved that he is the stupidest person in the Democratic Party alive today - and perhaps for all time.

As we all know, George Bush and his subordinates have broken the law repeatedly - perhaps thousands of times, perhaps millions, perhaps even billions - by illegally capturing the phone calls and emails of American citizens without a warrant. Under FISA, the penalty for each violation is a fine up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.

George Bush personally authorized these massive illegal wiretaps through executive orders at least 30 times.

If George Bush were prosecuted, he'd spend the rest of his life in jail. If Democrats wanted to impeach Bush, they'd have a slam-dunk case.

(Of course Democrats don't have the smoking-gun evidence of Bush's crimes in hand. Why not? Because Bush refuses to give it to them, even though they started asking for it two years ago (under then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter) when the NY Times first exposed the scandal. But all they need to do to get the evidence is enforce their subpoenas through Inherent Contempt (locking up stonewalling officials in a DC jail like they do to anti-Bush protesters) or starting impeachment hearings, which would make enforcement of the subpoenas by Federal courts easier.)

In other words, Democrats have Bush over a barrel - or as they say in Texas, they have him by the balls.

So what does Steny Hoyer want to do with this unbelievable leverage?

He could use it for many things. For example, he could tell Bush to bring our troops safely home from Iraq now or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to appoint a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the hundreds of billions in corrupt contracts to his cronies from Iraq to the Gulf Coast or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to de-Bushify the executive branch by firing every Michael Brown and Monica Goodling or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to provide universal health care, stop global warming, and fix all our crumbling schools, roads, bridges, and levees or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to cut taxes on working families by raising taxes on the rich or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

Get the picture?

Now there's one crucial assumption in this argument - that Bush actually cares about being impeached or going to prison. Because if he doesn't care, then he'll cheerfully accept impeachment and prison rather than meet Democratic demands.

And that's where Hoyer's insane idea of granting immunity to telephone companies comes into play.

If Bush doesn't care about impeachment or prison, the executives of the telephone companies sure as hell do care about their civil and criminal liability for violating FISA, because each of them could be fined and imprisoned for each violation their companies committed.

And the millions of shareholders of the telephone companies sure as hell do care because their companies could be bankrupted by FISA civil suits.

And between the executives and shareholders of the telephone companies, they could damn well persuade Bush to accept whatever terms the Democrats demand.

So with all of this incredible leverage in the palm of his hands, what is Hoyer proposing to do with it?

He wants to use it to get Bush to sign a bill that no one in America wants Democrats to pass or Bush to sign!!!

The American people are perfectly happy with FISA as it existed until Democrats gutted it in August by passing the Protect Wiretappers Act under the false threat of a terrorist attack - which itself was a criminal act by the Bush Administration.

But while the August law was loathsome, its only saving grace was a 6 month expiration date, at which point the strict terms of FISA would again become the law. So Americans would be much better off if Congress did nothing now and simply let the Protect Wiretappers Act expire.

But instead of doing nothing, Hoyer wants to get on his knees to beg Bush to sign a bill that nobody wants, and use his ace-in-the-hole to make him sign it!

Steny Hoyer practiced law for 15 years. If he doesn't understand the leverage he has in his hands, he should not only be thrown out of Congress - he should be tarred and feathered by every freedom-loving voter in America.

And if Congressional Democrats support Hoyer's insanity, they should meet the very same fate.

Steny Hoyer Attacks His Democratic Base

Bob Fertik — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:10:26 -0400

Nancy Pelosi is the "Speaker of the House," and is therefore supposed to speak for all House members, Democrats and Republicans. By her very title, she's not supposed to be excessively partisan - although former House Speaker Newt Gingrich certainly never behaved that way.

But one step down the Democratic hierarchy from Pelosi is a fellow named Steny Hoyer. And what is his title? Majority leader. By his very title, he's supposed to be the ultimate partisan in the House, just like his predecessor Tom DeLay.

Well apparently Hoyer despises the voters who put Democrats in the majority and gave him his title - namely the Democratic base.

"I know the base is mad at us – and I’m mad at the base." When he tossed that off, I inquired "Because.....?" He basically said the base has unrealistic expectations in terms of ending the war, and the Dems can’t de-fund it because doing so would anger the moderates they need to win more seats in ’08. (I must be delusional in thinking that the 70% of the public opposed to the war includes some independents – that’s obviously not the thinking in Hoyer-land).

According to our latest poll, 73% of Americans want Democrats to use their spending power to bring all troops home within a year. That includes 86.5% of Democrats, but that's apparently not enough for the "Majority Leader."

It also includes 78% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans. Is that enough for you, Mr. "Majority Leader"?

If not, exactly what percent of voters have to demand an end to the war before you will provide the "Leadership" to represent our will?

Hoyer Surrenders to Bush and Lies About It

Bob Fertik — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:04:22 -0400

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was one of only 59 Democrats who voted on May 10 to keep U.S. troops in Iraq forever. Today, after months of one-sided negotiations with the White House, Hoyer completely surrendered:

Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills.

Hey Steny - we've heard the exact same promises since November - why on earth would we believe you now?

"We can't pass something without the president's signature and the president can't pass something without our agreement," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. "So we can be at a standoff and go back and forth at each other, or we can come to an agreement."

Well how about insisting on an agreement that represents the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans (and Iraqis), rather than the two war criminals in the White House?

Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately — or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-founder of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus, said she will vote against the new measure and predicted that many of colleagues will join her.

"Every time we negotiate, it (the bill) becomes weaker," said Woolsey, D-Calif. "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."

Why on earth is Steny Hoyer promoting a Republican bill? Is that why we emptied our pockets to elect a Democratic majority in 2006? Why don't Democrats apply the same rule as the Republicans did - that no bill went to the floor with the support of a majority of the majority?

Hoyer's betrayal is so profound that he has to lie to our faces.

Hoyer said the new bill, despite its lack of a timetable on troop withdrawals, is still a victory for Democrats.

"There's not a rubber stamp or blank check here. . . . And we believe the net result here will be a significant change in direction," said Hoyer.

Change in direction??? The only change is going in the opposite direction - a secret second surge, according to today's expose by Hearst Newspapers:

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

Back to Hoyer:

"The fact of the matter is, I think we have moved this debate very substantially forward in terms of accountability and demanding a new direction in Iraq," Hoyer said.

The Maryland Democrat said the next step for his party will be to insist on tougher language in the 2008 military spending bill to be debated this summer.

Personally, I think the next step for the Democratic Party is to find an "aggressive progressive" to run a primary against Steny Hoyer - and against the rest of the 59 Bush Democrats who want to stay in Iraq forever.

What say ye?

Update 1: Russ Feingold blogs at Kos:

This situation is a collapse for Democrats. We had a strong start, pushed back against the President’s failed policy and held our ground that the supplemental should include binding language to end the war. But now, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards. As one person commented under Greg Sargent’s great post at TPM cafe, "Send the Congressional Dems over to my place for some poker - I could use a windfall right now."

This is no time to back down. This fight to end the war isn’t something that we can just put off or kick down the road. As mcjoan pointed out, it doesn’t make any sense to wait until this "mythical September" when Republicans will suddenly decide that we need to get out of Iraq. Why should this wait until September? First Americans had to put up with a Republican Congress that did nothing, and now we are faced with a Democratic Congress that is giving the President exactly what he wants – continuing his failed policy and leaving our troops stuck in the middle of a civil war. Some strategy. We can’t back down when the stakes are so high. I know you’ll keep ratcheting up the pressure, and that’s exactly what we need right now. Now is the time to be pulling out all the stops to end the war.

We're pulling!

110th Congress Buys the War

CactusPat — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:51:34 -0400

Certificate of Ownership: 110th Congress Buys the War by stacybannerman Saturday 24 March 2007
Busy week here on the Hill, and I’m sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty – the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at www.mfso.org)... (more)

Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform “patrolling and occupying” the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available here).

After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi’s office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war.

I was back on the Hill on Thursday for a Senate Armed Services committee meeting, followed by stops at several Senatorial offices. First was Sen. Akaka (D-Hawaii), to ask about my request for the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee to hold a human cost hearing. Bad timing, no one was around to help me, will call next week, and go back. Next stop: the Senate VA committee office in the Russell building. I cc’d them on the hearing request, and asked if there’d been any movement.

The snarky staffer kept saying that they’d never gotten my e-mail, knew nothing about my request, but I refused to leave and, after some pressing, they whipped out the hard copy of my letter. Then the man with the bad attitude metaphorically patted me on the head, saying, “We have hearings all the time, and get expert testimony.”

I reply, “You mean like the expert testimony General Pace provided at an Armed Services hearing in early February when he assured the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee that he was fully confident in the readiness and capabilities of the National Guard, particularly in the border states? And then, two weeks later, Lt. Gen. Blum of the National Guard reported that only 12 percent of Guard units were at readiness?” That kind of expert testimony?”

The man sneers, but remains silent.

“The only people who are experts at the realities and challenges and failure to care for veterans are the veterans themselves and the military families who love them. We need an open hearing.”

I repeated that to Jeff Bjornstad, chief of staff of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who is a member of the Veterans Affairs committee. Jeff and I talked about a number of things, and I hope to have some progress to report in the next week or so.

Back to the vote. Our people spent much of the day Thursday making phone calls and in meetings with members of Congress, their staffers or aides. It wasn’t looking good, but we knew it was over when the Out of Iraq - whoops, scratch that - the Stay in Iraq Caucus released it’s members to vote ‘yes’ on continuing the funding for the war.
Friday morning some military families and veterans sat in the gallery during testimony and the vote; others stood at the crosswalk that members of congress use to get to the Capitol. I spoke with some of the Representatives on their way to the vote, including Jim McDermott (D-WA), who has been against this war from the start. During my conversation with the Seattle liberal, I caught something in his eyes – remorse? - and I knew he would join the ranks of the dozens of others who were choosing to break their promises to us, the American people, and most disappointingly, the troops.

Some examples: Rep. Wynn (D-Maryland) has made a public commitment to defunding the war. Last month, Congressman Wynn signed onto the Declaration of Peace and publicly committed to defund the war, withdraw US troops, and support a sustained peace process and the reconstruction of Iraq. As part of this, he signed on to Jim McGovern's bill, HR 4232, End the War in Iraq Act, to use the Congressional power of the purse to get our troops out of Iraq starting now. Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Wynn was the only member of the Maryland delegation who said he would not vote for continued funding of this war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Even more unbelievable is Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), who introduced HR 4232, and has spent years publicly proclaiming his opposition to the war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

The bill does have a timeline, one that brings troops home at the end of 2008, unless they are engaged in training Iraq forces or killing or capturing terrorists. Which means this goes on for another year and a half, and there’s no real timeline at all. Another year and a half where we will see an average of three soldiers dying every day. The bill does place restrictions on the president, and includes a loop hole that lets the president send the troops to Iraq, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and without proper rest, as long as he tells Congress in writing why it's in the interest of national security to do so.

Earlier this year, Congressman Markey (D-MA) signed a pledge to vote against the $100 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq coming before Congress. Representative Markey has stated he would vote against all supplemental funding. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Who else failed miserably in the integrity department and bought the war yesterday, after getting elected largely because of their opposition to funding it?

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), whose campaign website states:

"The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq. Americans have spent billions on this unnecessary war only to see tragedy, fraud, and waste."

I guess Carol thought we should spend another 100 billion more, so that America could add to the tragedy, fraud, and waste while Keith Ellison (D-MN) who ran on an anti-war ticket, and posted this on his website:

"I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

Now that Keith’s not a candidate, his true colors come out, and he’s decided that rather than supporting the troops, he supports some sort of withdrawal at some point in the distant future – or not.

Campaign’s over, folks, back to business as usual.

Other disappointments include: Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), another outspoken war critic,
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), et. al.

Of the 14 Dem’s who did NOT vote to fund the war, New York Congressman McNulty’s website statement is particularly noteworthy:

"In the spring of 1970, during my first term as Town Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York. Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy Medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province.

I have thought -- many times since then -- that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive.

As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare.

In October of 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation.

On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9th, 1970."

Yesterday, every member of Congress that voted to fund the war bought – at minimum – another year and a half of pain, sacrifice, and suffering, which will be paid for by thousands of American troops and military families, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

note: CP here, I took the liberty of converting the original pdf files of the Certificate of Ownership to jpg form. The certificate is embedded above and below is the reverse, warranty. You can d-load the original pdf's for printing at mfso.org or directly here and here...

Tell Congress To Put Ending The War BACK On The Table

thepen — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:01:02 -0400

Call your members of Congress now toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/funded_withdrawal.php

Usually when we contact our members of Congress our great challenge is to get policy hostile Republicans to understand that even in THEIR districts we have enough people opposing them to threaten their reelection. But we certainly expect our OWN representatives to listen to us. So why is it that STILL some of our most progressive House members are not fully behind Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded withdrawal of our troops from the hopeless sandpit in Iraq. You would be astounded by the names of some of your own representatives who have not yet committed to taking a real stand to end this war.

Is it any wonder that the popularity of Congress has dropped almost 10 points in the last month, back down to 28%. The American people elected a Democratic majority in both houses to take ACTION, not to just wring their hands and pass the buck of responsibility. The essence of exercising power is to take responsibility. When pushed, Bush will say, "So, I'm responsible, whatcha gonna do?" Yet, on the most drop dead critical issue of our time, the Democratic so-called leadership seems to be resigned to casting token votes of limp protest, quiet whimpers of timid discomfort, with no actual force of law.

Oh sure, it's all very well to take pot shots at lying attorney generals and call for resignations. It's perfectly fine to issue subpoenas and demand testimony under oath from self-evident liars, to root out corruption and everything else, and even to grandstand while doing so, assuming they manage to stick to their guns in doing that. All those things must be done too. But NONE of those things require any actual bravery, just a majority in Congress.

Are our Democratic bigwigs only capable of setting up some kind of "We told you so" for 2008, without actually risking responsibility for real policy change? Are they triangulating their bets just in case the situation in Iraq happens to take a miraculous turn for the better, in defiance of all evidence on the ground and past experience of the same failing, rehashed strategy. Are they so petrified of being blamed for losing a war, which was ALREADY a strategic debacle the moment Bush decided to invade Iraq, that they will do nothing of substance about it. And are they so frightened of taking charge that they will meekly submit even to a gross and insane expansion into Iran, just to avoid being seen as insufficiently blood thirsty.

The difference between the supplemental war appropriation and some other bill to stop the war is that this is a measure that the president NEEDS from Congress. This is not a bill he can veto and count on having enough remaining rubber-stampers to scuttle an override. This may in fact be the ONLY meaningful chance we will have in the next two years to keep from inheriting the military policy disaster in Iraq, to embrace for our very own shame. The American people will not forgive the Democrats for caving in again, when they gave us enough power to stop the war for the very PURPOSE of exercising that power. Text of the Lee Amendment.

The last poll we've seen shows that MORE than 90% of Democrats (and even a quarter of self-identified Republicans) OPPOSE dragging on a continuation of the Iraq war. Where are the 90% of Democratic House members who will represent their constituencies. Where are they? Where are 90% of Democratic members of Congress who will take a stand right NOW to STOP this immoral horror. And where are the 90% of Democratic presidential candidates who will do more than say their patience is wearing "thin," about four years too late.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/funded_withdrawal.php

What kind of backroom conspiracy is in place to allow votes on non binding resolutions, but NOT on amendments which would actually DO something. Why has Nancy Pelosi taken all options of any actual consequence off the table? Of course the president will veto anything that even suggests a check or a balance. What kind of phony activism is it to avoid a confrontation, where one is absolutely unavoidable and inevitable, and without which the outrages will just continue to grow more outrageous? That is all the more reason why we must put forth the strongest position possible.

Wasn't this demonstrated yet again today with the president adamantly refusing to let any aide be questioned under oath and on the record about their stacking of the deck in the justice department? Hear the words of old Nixon hand, and new Bush stonewall master, Fred Fielding telling Congress to run along and play like nice little children, refusing to negociate about anything more than informal and constrictive bull sessions.

"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas . . . We trust and believe that the accommodations we offer here, in addition to what the Justice Department has provided, should satisfy the committee's interests."

Who do they think they are talking down to? Many of our senators and representatives are themselves experienced and seasoned prosecuting attorney generals from their own states. What disrepect for the prerogative of Congress! Isn't it perfectly obvious that they are counting on having enough crony judges in place to abort any credible investigation, in the case of a subpoena showdown? Are we the only ones who are reminded of IDENTICAL conditions imposed on the 9/11 commission about the testimony of Bush and Cheney, and what chumps the commissioners were at that time to submit to such a charade of an investigation?

Let us also remember that Alberto Gonzales is the same attorney general who, when the scandal of the NSA wiretapping first broke, stated that the White House was willing to listen to the "suggestions" of Congress. Suggestions?!?! Hello . . . Congress passes LAWS, the laws of the land. What we have here is a contempt for Congress, and their Constitution role, so endemic that nothing can possibly heal the body politic but a stone cold confrontation.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/funded_withdrawal.php

And the best and most important place to start is by demanding that any new Iraq appropriation be DEDICATED for the mission of getting our armed forces out of the Iraq civil war, where they are the primary obstacle to achieving the political settlement, which is the only possible solution. Please call your members of Congress and tell them this is the moment. This is the time. Do it now.