Capitol Idea: He's The President, Not A 'Story'

By Scott Nance

Apparently, the only thing Republicans can find to like about President Obama is the color of his skin.

Back in November following the election, when President George W. Bush wanted to say some kind words about Obama, he focused squarely on the historical triumph it would be for Obama to become the nation's first African-American president.

At the time, it was right to honor and celebrate that fact for Obama's election did mark a dramatically positive turning point for American history. In some real way, it was gracious of Bush to give voice to a sentiment most in the country were feeling.

But fast forward three months and Republicans apparently are still stuck on Obama's race. When it came his turn to try to say something nice about the popular president during the Republican response to Obama's speech this week, all Bobby Jindal could muster is once again marveling at Obama's "personal story."

Enough. If the only praise Republicans can ever muster for Obama is to single him out as an African-American president, it will quickly become condescending and ring hollow.

Obama has made a significant, and apparently quite sincere, attempt to reach out to Republicans. In doing so, he never focused solely on their race or other surface personal qualities.

Obama's dealt with the Republicans on their merits as individuals and their ideas. He has tried to praise those Republican ideas that he honestly can. And when he disagrees, he has tried to do so fairly and respectfully in most cases.

It's time for the Republicans to reciprocate.

This is not to say the GOP would -- or should -- always agree with Obama on policy and philosophy. It is their right, perhaps even responsibility, not to. But surely, the Republicans can find some compliment to pay the president other than for his skin tone and the historical symbolism his election represents. Lauding those qualities aren't really paying any tribute to who Obama really is, after all.

Obama included tax cuts in his economic stimulus program. Republicans are supposed to like tax cuts. Now maybe Republicans can argue with Obama's specific tax cuts, or say they aren't enough tax cuts or whatever the gripe is. But can they not even bring themselves to say something nice about the fact the president tried to include tax cuts?

Okay, maybe that's asking too much to expect the GOP to appreciate an aspect -- any aspect -- of Obama's political program. But can they not find even anything worthy of praise in Obama as a person?

Obama exhibits many fine qualities as an individual that Republicans could extol. He is clearly a highly intelligent man, and again -- even if you disagree with everything Obama is actually doing -- he is clearly working extremely hard on behalf of the country.

Can the Republicans not even praise Obama's work ethic?

Is that too much? How about the fact Obama is a good father? If the Republicans really have to stretch, maybe they can at least say that the president seems like real good dad. Or something. Can't they find something to like about this guy besides his complexion?

The point here is that it would be nice, if the Republicans want to say something kind about Obama at all, to actually find something good to say about who Obama actually is -- not just his place in history.

At least the Republicans have been treating Obama better than they treated Bill Clinton -- and remember, author Toni Morrison once called Clinton the nation's "first black president."

The publisher of On The Hill and its sister sites, Life, The Universe ... and Politics Live, Scott Nance has covered government and Washington for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Sen. Durbin Reintroduces Payday Cap Bill Aimed At 'Legal Loan Sharking'

The second-highest Senate Democrat has re-introduced his bill that would cap annual interest rates on consumer credit at 36 percent in an attempt to control high interest fees charged by so-called payday and other lenders, according to a statement by a lending watchdog group that supports the measure.

The legislation from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is similar to a bill he filed last year in the prior Congress. Durbin is the Senate majority whip.

“Within blocks of my home in Springfield, Illinois, there are payday lenders charging interest rates of two and three hundred percent of the value of the loan,” Durbin says in a statement issued last year when he filed the earlier bill. “These excessive rates are often hidden and can have crippling effects on those individuals who can afford it least. Congress must enact protections against predatory lending. America’s working families depend on it.”

Congress already applied Durbin's proposed cap in 2006 nationally to active members of the military, according to the statement from the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). The cap would stop abuses by payday and car-title lenders at a time when keeping as much cash as possible in the hands of borrowers is crucial to restoring health to the U.S. economy, CRL says. And it would apply to credit products over which states have no jurisdiction, it adds.

"A 36 percent cap on annual interest for consumer credit is a quick, common-sense way to restore protections that have been severely compromised in the consumer credit market," says CRL President Michael Calhoun. "It would cost taxpayers nothing and plug a $5 billion hole in the wallets of working families."

The measure would not affect loans with reasonable interest rates and other manageable terms but would eliminate products that rely on extremely high rates -- some carry 400 percent annual interest and higher -- and trap consumers in debt they cannot afford, CRL says.

Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, and Arizona are among states that recently revoked legal exemptions from usury caps their lawmakers once gave payday lenders, CRL says.

Some 35 states have yet to pass reforms that stop such practices, however.

CRL notes that payday loans are marketed as an advance on a borrower's next paycheck, but the terms of these small loans are designed to keep borrowers paying high interest payments over long periods of time without paying off the loan or even paying down the principal.

The federal measure would give all citizens an equal measure of protection from what CRL describes as "legal loan-sharking," but also would allow state lawmakers to set even stronger protections if they deem it necessary. Arkansas limits interest to 17 percent within its state constitution, New York makes interest above 25 percent a criminal offense, and Ohio passed a 28 percent cap last year, which was affirmed by voters in a ballot measure in November. A federal cap would not alter these state protections, according to the CRL statement.

"Recent research links predatory products like payday lending to bankruptcy, closed bank accounts, credit card delinquency and a long list of other financial hardships," says Calhoun. "There is really no excuse for failing to stop these abuses now, for the sake of working families across the nation, and for the sake of our economic stability. We see where lax consumer protections led us in the mortgage market. We should learn from that hard-taught lesson."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Obama: 2010 Budget 'First Step' Toward Responsibility, Budget Reform

President Barack Obama introduced his federal budget proposal for the 2010 fiscal year by calling it a "first step" on a journey toward more responsibility to deal with long-term challenges, as well as toward "honesty and fairness" in budgeting.

Obama's budget plan totals $3.55 trillion and includes $634 billion in what the president calls a "down payment" on a universal health care system. His budget proposal would also raise taxes on those Americans making more than $250,000.

Obama uses his personally signed introduction to the budget to remind readers of the crisis currently engulfing the U.S. economy, and to criticize a lack of responsibility to deal with serious issues shown both by government and the private sector.

"The time has come to usher in a new era—a new era of responsibility in which we act notonly to save and create new jobs, but also to lay a new foundation of growth upon which we can renew the promise of America," Obama writes. "This Budget is a first step in that journey. It lays out for the American people the extent of the crisis we inherited, the steps we will take to jumpstart our economy to create new jobs, and our plans to transform our economy for the 21st Century to give our children and grandchildren the fruits of many years of economic growth."

Obama says with only a little more than a month in office, his administration has not yet had the time to "fully execute all the budget reforms that are needed, and to which I am fully committed."

"Those will come in the months ahead, and next year’s budget process will look much different," Obama promises.

"But this Budget does begin the hard work of bringing new levels of honesty and fairness to your Government," the president says. "It looks ahead a full 10 years, making good-faith estimates about what costs we would incur; and it accounts for items that under the old rules could have been left out, making it appear that we had billions more to spend than we really do. The Budget also begins to restore a basic sense of fairness to the tax code, eliminating incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and giving a generous package of tax cuts to 95 percent of working families."


Reaction To The Budget


Congressional Republicans blasted Obama's budget, with Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana reportedly calling the spending plan a "prescription for economic decline."

However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls Obama's budget "a profile in courage."

"The budget confronts the budget deficits the President inherited, restores honesty and eliminates easy gimmicks, makes smart and tough choices to cut ineffective spending and does not put off for another day dramatic reforms that are needed to create jobs and strengthen our economy," the California Democrat says. "At long last, we have a President whose policies match the clear goals he has articulated for the nation’s economy, and has presented a budget that reflects our nation’s values of opportunity for all with responsibility from all."

Meanwhile, labor union that represents some 600,000 federal workers says it generally finds much to be pleased about in Obama's proposals.

"We are encouraged by finally having the resources to run our agencies," says John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). "This budget is a welcome departure from the 'starve the beast' policies of the last eight years that sought to deprive government agencies and programs of the resources they needed to carry out their missions on behalf of the American people."

In a statement, AFGE contends that while the last eight years saw budgets that catered only to the interests of the wealthy and politically connected contractors, this budget places the highest priorities on veterans; the elderly and the disabled who rely on Social Security; education; the safety of communities where federal prisons are located; science-based projects to protect the environment; housing assistance; and those who buy health insurance and uses health care.

"Federal employees are genuinely committed to providing their fellow Americans with the highest quality services and protections. From the Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol agents' efforts to protect the border to the Department of Labor's OSHA inspectors to the VA nurses and doctors -- federal employees are pleased to see that President Obama investing in additional resources for many key agencies for hiring staff who will be dedicated to serving the public interest," Gage says.

The 2010 budget goes even further, recognizing the harm done by the Bush administration's privatization agenda, AFGE says. "Their ideological bias forced agencies to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of the integrity of federal programs as well as public accountability. It looks like that may be coming to an end," says Gage.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

In Closing Gitmo, Administration Will Be Dealing With 'Three Kinds of Detainees'

Although the Obama administration will face challenges in closing the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison, those problems come with solutions, according to an expert on civil liberties issues at a progressive Washington think tank. Specifically, administration officials will have to proceed "on three tracks," he adds.

"There are really three kinds of detainees at Guantanamo, and we have to have different solutions for each one," says Ken Gude, associate director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the Center for American Progress. Prior to joining the center, Gude was a policy analyst at the Center for National Security Studies, where he focused on post-Sept. 11 civil liberties issues.

"One track are detainees that we brought to the United States for trial in U.S. courts and incarceration in U.S. prisons if they're convicted," Guide says. "The second track are detainees that need to be sent back to their native countries either for incarceration there or for release, if that's appropriate. And the third track are detainees that cannot be sent back to their native countries for a variety of reasons and we'll have to find third countries willing to accept them."

President Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison as one of his first official acts once sworn in. The prison, sited at a U.S. naval base in Cuba, currently holds more than 200 individuals detained since U.S. forces began a war on terrorism under President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Most detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been held without due process, in addition to frequent allegations of torture and abuse of the prisoners held there. A number of interests, both foreign and U.S.-based, have called to a closure of the Guantanamo prison.

Obama's order indicates the prison will be closed within a year, so that its doors will be closed by January 2010, Gude notes, speaking in a new web video.

While the difficulties in closing Guantanamo Bay are often cited, "there are solutions to each of these challenges," Gude says.

"A lot of the focus has been on exactly how hard it will be, and it will be difficult. The challenges are real. The solutions are not necessarily perfect because nothing is perfect at Guantanamo," he says.

"But in the track on detainees that are going to be tried in U.S. courts, certainly there's a problem with the evidence," Gude says. "We hear a lot about how the files are in disarray, the case files are in disarray, a lot of the evidence is classified, some of the evidence may have been obtained through torture, and obviously that will not be used in U.S. courts. But there is a body of law that establishes procedures to use classified evidence at trial, and we can accomplish that goal.

"In the second track, sending detainees back to their native countries, some countries, particularly Yemen, have very little control over their prison system, and they will have to get better at that if we're going to send the 95 Yemenis that are still at Guantanamo back to Yemen. If we can't resolve that issue with the Yemenis, we would have to then find a third country willing to incarcerate some of those Yemenis," Gude says.

"And finally in the last track, the detainees that can't be sent back to their native countries, we'll obviously have to find some nations that are willing to accept these resettled detainees. Perhaps some of them could come to the United States, particularly the group of Chinese Muslims called the Uighurs who have been at Guantanamo for seven years even though they were never enemies of the United States," Gude says. "They perhaps could come to and live in the United States. But most of these detainees will have to be resettled in other countries. I'm greatly encouraged that even after just a few days, the European Union has established a formal process for how they will treat these detainees, how they will process them, and how they will accept them into their countries. So we've seen a lot of momentum really just after a few days since the president issued this executive order, and I think we'll get to a solution."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Enviro Group Trumpets Gas Tax Adjustment Shot Down By White House

A well-known environmental organization is praising a recommendation in a new report to move to federal funding of transportation based on a miles-traveled tax. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood briefly floated the same idea last week before being quickly shot down by the White House.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is touting a new report that identifies under-investment in transportation and dependence on the federal gas tax as key causes of poor transportation system performance that cost drivers $78 billion a year in congestion-related costs.

The report, "Paying Our Way: A New Network for Transportation Finance," was released today by a bi-partisan, congressionally-appointed National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. The report shows the growing consensus for implementing a comprehensive new transportation revenue system by 2020 or sooner, EDF says. It recommends a temporary federal gas tax hike that transitions to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee, it adds.

"If we are serious about fixing our country's transportation crisis, this report is a good place to start the debate," says Michael Replogle, a civil engineer, transportation director for EDF and an adviser to the federal Department of Transportation on intelligent transportation systems. "We applaud the Commission for introducing ideas, such as the VMT fee, that can both raise revenue and reward infrastructure and personal decisions that result in less environmental impact. New, innovative funding mechanisms like the ones proposed in this report -- coupled with a cap on global warming pollution -- could help finance a shift to a cleaner infrastructure."

LaHood created a minor controversy when he suggested such a VMT fee in an interview with a reporter. Only a short time later, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if LaHood's idea represented Obama administration policy.

"I can weigh in on it and say that it is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," Gibbs responded.

In its report on the incident, the Washington Post reconstructed the reporter's conversation with Gibbs this way:

QUESTION: So was Secretary LaHood speaking out of turn here? Was he...

GIBBS: I would direct you to Secretary LaHood on that.

QUESTION: Well, we actually interviewed him. So that...

GIBBS: Well, call him back.

Aside from how revenue is raised, much also depends on how it's spent, EDF's Replogle adds.

"The report's recommendations need to be paired with a new federal cap on global warming pollution and strong requirements that transportation plans and programs cut greenhouse gas emissions by cutting traffic growth and congestion," he says.

"Otherwise, there is a danger that revenue increases will worsen our problems by wasting money on building new roads to crumbling bridges, fueling more sprawl, traffic growth and pollution," says Replogle. "A portion of revenues from a carbon cap could be used to supplement transportation funding, expanding travel choices for Americans who are stuck in traffic without any alternatives to driving."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

With 2009 Spending Bill, Dems Take One More Swipe At George W. Bush

Even as President Obama prepares to unveil his first proposed federal budget for the next fiscal year, lawmakers are mopping up spending for the current year. As the House today approved a a $410 billion bill to wrap up work on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills, top congressional Democrats took a look in the rearview mirror to cast blame once more on President George W. Bush.

Obama tomorrow is expected to introduce his spending plan for the FY 2010 fiscal year that begins in October. The measure the House passed today would fund the government through the current 2009 fiscal year which ends Sept. 30. The goverment had been operating under an earlier continuing resolution, funding agencies at reduced levels. To become law, the bill must now be approved by the Senate and signed by Obama.

“By completing the appropriations bills that the previous Administration delayed, and by rejecting the deep cuts affecting our children, our workers, and our economy that President Bush proposed, Congress can now focus its full attention on the pressing challenges facing our nation," says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "In this legislation, and because of the condition of our economy and the financial crisis, Congress also rejected a cost of living increase for Members for next year."

Pelosi's comments echo those of Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee that oversees all federal spending bills.

"Last year, President Bush refused to work with Congress to come up with compromise to finish these nine bills, instead insisting on unacceptable cuts to energy research, healthcare, education, law enforcement and biomedical research," Obey says.

In a statement, Obey says Bush would have insisted on:

• Cutting energy efficiency, renewable energy and weatherization programs by $915 million;
•Cutting education by $3.3 billion -- eliminating vocational education programs, slashing higher education programs, and cutting programs to help teachers and improve technology;
•Cutting healthcare access programs by over $1 billion while the number of uninsured Americans continues to grow, freezing biomedical research funding, and cutting the Centers for Disease Control by $475 million;
•Cutting state and local law enforcement grants by $1.5 billion or 65%; and
•Cutting job training, employment services and worker protections during the economic crisis by $1.2 billion.

"At the same time, the Bush budget would have increased funds to favored initiatives that were proven to be ineffective or unable to spend the money they were given last year," Obey adds. "Congress rejected these devastating cuts, and today presents a bill that will keep the government running and finish last year’s business. This bill works in harmony with the economic recovery package, making investments that address the country’s immediate needs while investing in our long term economic strength."

House Republicans, meanwhile, blasted the omnibus. In a statement, Republican leader John Boehner's office says the bill is loaded "with more and more Washington spending at a time of record-high deficits."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Capitol Idea: Painted Into A Corner, Republicans May Find Their Backs To The Wall

By Scott Nance

With their flat and strenous opposition to President Obama's economic recovery program, Republicans have backed themselves into a corner.

If the Republicans were playing Obama at a card table, the GOP would be playing a weak hand, hoping Obama was bluffing.

Last night in the Republican response to Obama's address to Congress, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to put as happy a face as he could on the GOP position, saying nice things about Obama personally while calling the president's policies "irresponsible."

In his remarks, Jindal criticized the Democrats' economic program without putting forward any specific remedies of his own. Yes, to be sure, he spoke highly of tax cuts. But it's as if he and the rest of the GOP expect the American to be striken with amnesia over the events the events of the last eight years. Republican President George W. Bush implemented his tax cuts -- only to the detriment of the economy. Jindal last night never said how any new Republican tax cuts would be different from, or better than, the Bush tax cuts already on record.

The Republicans clearly are betting that Obama's economic stimulus will fail and clearly want it to fail. Jindal himself has said he won't take at least a portion of the federal stimulus money offered to his state.

Republicans are wagering that the stimulus money will suffer fraud, abuse, and only increase the already massive federal debt.

But what if, in that imaginary card game, Obama is fully conscious of his own hand and is actively out-hustling the Republicans?

Obama said straight out last night, "I get it." Obama obviously gets the risks involved. He sees the risks of fraud, waste and abuse -- and appears to be dealing with it. He understands the risk of adding to the federal deficit and debt -- which is why he has already said his budgets will actually reduce that deficit by half during his first term.

What if the stimulus program doesn't fail? If Obama does what he says he will do, the chances are a stimulus of nearly $1 trillion will have some positive effect. That much money almost be definition can't be poured into the U.S. economy without causing some economic growth. Republicans should be aware of that. After all, President Ronald Reagan prompted successful economic growth a quarter century ago by ramping up federal spending on the military.

All of which is not to say the stimulus program won't encounter problems and setbacks -- an undertaking of that magnitude certainly will. But what if Obama isn't bluffing, and he successfully navigates those problems?

By being so opposed to a stimulus that may potentially have a positive effect without having offered any specific alternatives, at the end of the game Republicans may well find themselves out-played.

Of course, in that case, the real winners of this game will be the American people. But if the Republicans find that in the end they have to fold their hand, where will that leave them going into next year's elections?

The publisher of On The Hill and its sister sites, Life, The Universe ... and Politics Live, Scott Nance has covered government and Washington for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Following Brutal Chimp Attack, House Overwhelmingly Passes Primate Pet Ban

Just a week after a savage attack in Connecticut involving a chimpanzee, the House today overwhelmingly passed legislation aimed at curbing the keeping of primates as pets.

Animal advocates, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), support the measure, known as the Captive Primate Safety Act (H.R.80). The bill passed on a vote of of 323-95. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add primates to the list of animals that cannot be transported across state lines by individuals.

Just last week Stamford, Conn., police shot dead Travis the chimpanzee, after Travis severely mauled friend of Travis' owner.

“Make no mistake, this bill will protect our communities and ensure the welfare of these animals,” says Blumenauer. “The horrific chimpanzee attack in Connecticut last week brought a renewed urgency to this issue and I am pleased with today’s long over due passage of this bill. Primates are wild animals and should not be regularly transported around the United States and integrated into our communities or our households. Today we have taken an important step toward the welfare of humans and animals.

Although the importation of primates into the United States for the pet trade has been banned by federal regulation since 1975, these animals are bred in the United States and are readily available for purchase from exotic animal dealers and even over the Internet, according to a statement from Blumenauer's office. Because of the importation laws, there remains an active domestic trade in these animals. Up to 400 chimpanzees are kept as pets in the United States, the statement adds.

The bill targets the pet trade and does not affect trade or transportation of animals between zoos, research facilities, or other federally licensed and regulated entities, the statement says. It is similar to the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which Congress passed unanimously in 2003 to ban interstate commerce in lions, tigers, and other big cats for the pet trade, the statement adds.

Renowned primatologist Jane Goodall urged passage at a hearing, saying: “In doing so, you will be promoting public health and safety, as well as taking a reasonable and sound step toward protecting these amazing wild creatures.”

"Primates are highly social and intelligent creatures who shouldn't be shipped around the country just to languish in people's bedrooms, basements, or backyards," says Michael Markarian, executive vice president of HSUS.

Primates confiscated from private ownership often end up in over-burdened sanctuaries like the Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary in Texas, according the group that runs the sanctuary, Born Free USA

"The primate trade involves enormous animal suffering and threats to human safety," says Adam Roberts, senior vice president of Born Free USA. "These innocent animals may be confined in small cages or have their teeth or fingernails removed. We can't allow animals to be mutilated in the name of companionship. There is simply no excuse for keeping primates as pets and the trade must stop. Wildlife belongs in the wild."

Born Free USA and HSUS are urging the Senate to move the legislation expeditiously so it can be signed into law this year.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Down On The Farm: Advocates Press Obama To Reform Bush Ag 'Abomination'

As President Obama works steadily to roll back the policies of the Bush administration, a progressive agriculture organization is adding to do the Oval Office "to-do list."

The Cornucopia Institute, a national organic watchdog group representing family farmers, is urging Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to "take immediate action to repair the USDA's increasingly dysfunctional National Organic Program (NOP)," according to a statement.

The organization adds that it sees signs that its concerns are being taken seriously by Obama administration officials.

The institute says that its officials this month sent a briefing paper to Obama and Vilsack specifically asking that they take "a very strong and proactive posture in turning around management at the National Organic Program."

The mission of the NOP is to develop, implement, and administer national production, handling, and labeling standards for organic agricultural products. The NOP also accredits the certifying agents --both foreign and domestic -- who inspect organic production and handling operations to certify that they meet USDA standards, according to the USDA website.

Organic food has mushroomed into organics into a greater-than-$20 billion-a-year business, according to the Cornucopia Institute.

In its statement, the institute says, "Suspect imports of grains, nuts, and vegetables from China and other countries, questionable organic milk, beef, and eggs from giant factory farms, and the erosion of opportunity for family farmers are plaguing the organic sector."

"The stewardship of the organic program at the USDA has been an absolute abomination," says Mark Kastel, Cornucopia's senior farm policy analyst. "It was not just management by neglect -- it was an intentional monkeywrenching of the Department's organic industry oversight."

The complaints of the Cornucopia Institute echo similar criticisms of the Bush administration loosening regulations or not enforcing them properly as to favor corporate interests.

In the last several years, audits prepared by the American National Standards Institute and the Inspector General's office blasted the NOP for failing to ensure that independent organic certification agencies are competent and properly performing their jobs. A Peer Review Panel--fundamental to ensuring competent certification--has never been established, Cornucopia says.

"Technical Advisory Panels remain underfunded or unused. Furthermore, dozens of policy resolutions adopted by the National Organic Standards Board, the expert citizen advisory panel to the NOP, have never been reviewed or implemented," Cornucopia adds in its statement.

During the Bush administration political appointees at the USDA significantly softened penalties for organic lawbreakers, overruling stiff enforcement actions recommended by career civil servants for factory farms found willfully violating federal organic standards. Other complaints detailing abuses on factory farms were quashed or went uninvestigated, the organization alleges.
"If organic food production and eating had not caught on so well, we wouldn't see these scofflaws doing their thing," says. Merrill Clark, a certified organic livestock farmer from Michigan and former member of the National Organic Standards Board. "It's time to change the culture at the USDA."

Cornucopia officials say that a first sign that the new administration at USDA is taking concerns of organic and sustainable farming interests to heart, occurred this week when Vilsack announced the appointment of Kathleen Merrigan, a Tufts University assistant professor, as USDA deputy secretary.

Merrigan's bio on the Tuft's website lists her research interests as: sustainable development, negotiation theory, policy implementation, and interest group politics.

"I cannot think of a more qualified public policy expert to take on this important role at what Abraham Lincoln called the 'people's department,'" Kastel says.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Long-time Opponents, Teamsters Pleased By Apparent End Of Cross-Border Trucking

The Teamsters labor union is applauding the apparent final death knell to a controversial cross-border trucking program that the organization has fought from the very beginning.

The House Democratic leadership including the ban on Mexican trucks in the United States as part of the omnibus federal spending bill unveiled yesterday. The Bush administration launched the Mexican trucks cross-border program as a pilot project in 2007.

Section 136 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill's Transportation Title states, "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may be used, directly or indirectly, to establish, implement, continue, promote, or in any way permit a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico."

The 1.4 million-member Teamsters union has opposed Mexican trucks traveling U.S. roadways as unsafe.

Though Congress shut down the Bush administration's pilot program to open the border in the 2008 appropriations, the Bush administration ignored the ban, which expired at the end of the fiscal year. The U.S. Department of Transportation said last year it will extend the program for another two years despite congressional action to shut it down. The program involved some 100 Mexican motor carriers. The program also granted 100 U.S. motor carriers access to Mexico's roads, as well. Very few U.S. carriers applied for access to Mexican streets, however.

"Shutting down the border is the right thing to do," Teamsters President Jim Hoffa says. "There's no guarantee that trucks or drivers from Mexico are safe. Until there is, dangerous Mexican trucks should not be allowed to drive freely on our highways."

The Bush administration supported the Mexican trucks program as necessary for free trade. Bush administration Mary Peters contended that "safety and security programs are in place" when she launched the program in 2007. Bush and Congress approved those safety measures in 2001, according to Peters.

At the time that she launched the program, Peters decried Mexican trucks having to "come to a stop at an imaginary line."

"There, these trucks must sit idle until a U.S. truck arrives and the cargo is switched from one to the other," she said.

The Mexican trucks program was initiated under a provision of the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement that dates back to the Clinton administration. That provision of NAFTA wasn't used, however, until Bush initiated his program.

For the truck ban in the omnibus bill to become law, the measure will have to be approved by the full House and Senate, and then signed by President Obama to become law.

Although the White House has not announced Obama's position on the ban, Obama has been highly supportive of organized labor both before and after assuming the presidency.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program Must Focus on Health, Experts Say

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) must make public health a strong focus as it undergoes an internal reorganization under the Obama administration, say leading medical experts, health and environmental groups.

A memorandum signed by 22 medical experts and 10 groups recommends that CCSP correct the program's historic "relative under-emphasis... on human health and human dimensions in general" and instead address "the important and growing gaps in knowledge and practice," according to a statement announcing the memorandum.

Founded 13 years ago, CCSP is a federal research initiative that integrates climate research sponsored by 13 federal agencies and is overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget.

The CCSP was last shaped by the Climate Change Research Initiative that President George W. Bush announced eight years ago. However, President Obama has promised more forceful actions on the climate issue than those supported by Bush. Obama's incoming director of OSTP, John Holdren, was an outspoken critic of Bush climate policy.

The 10 groups that signed the memo with the recommendations are: the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Children's Environmental Health Network, Environmental Defense Fund, Medical Care Section of the American Public Health Association, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The memo, whose lead author is John Balbus, chief scientist for Environmental Defense Fund and a member of the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research and Medicine; details six specific recommendations to CCSP:

1) Explicitly state that one of the core goals of CCSP is the prevention of harm to human health due to climate change. Climate change poses a risk for U.S. populations, with uncertainties limiting the ability to quantify the projected number of increased injuries, illnesses, and deaths attributable to climate change. The extent of these uncertainties can be reduced with additional research.

2)Describe baseline conditions with respect to climate-sensitive risk factors, health outcomes, and current and planned public health interventions. Robust environmental monitoring and health surveillance data from across the United States are essential to analyze and track climate-sensitive health problems, such as asthma, infectious gastroenteritis, and vector-borne diseases.

3) Prioritize understanding and ameliorating the contribution of health disparities among subpopulations in the U.S. to climate change vulnerability. While there are studies that provide assessments of population and individual risk factors for specific health outcomes, very few associate these health risk factors with local socioeconomic, geographic, and climate change-related risk factors.

4) Develop and promote the implementation of standard methods for national, regional, and local health impact assessments for climate change. The current practice of using multiple units (e.g. use of different temperature scales), time frames, and baseline measures (e.g. underlying health status) among different assessments prevents easy comparisons.

5)Develop a research program and set of standard methods for assessing the health impacts (both co-benefits and unintended harms) of interventions in energy, transportation, agriculture, and housing intended to mitigate or adapt to climate change. The disease burden affected to some degree by decisions in the energy and transport sectors is very large. Decisions made by water and agriculture agencies, including those made in response to climate change, also have the capacity to increase or decrease risks from a range of infectious diseases, undernutrition, and other health risks.

6) Improve training of federal, state, and local health department personnel in the human health risks of and public health responses to climate change. The current public health system is greatly challenged to keep up with existing levels of health threats, including climate-sensitive ones. Additional training and capacity building are necessary to prepare public health professionals to deal with the urgent threats of climate change.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Pelosi, Dem Lawmakers Raise Issues In Meeting With Afghanistan's President

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats met with the president of Afghanistan to raise a number of issues while on a trip to that nation, according to a statement from the speaker's office.

The visit by Pelosi and seven other lawmakers comes in the wake of President Obama's decision to increase troop strength in Afghanistan by 17,000. Pelosi says the U.S. visit will dovetail with a broader strategic review of U.S. operations in that nation.

Pelosi says the delegation of lawmakers met with U.S. troops at Camp Eggers in Kabul and were briefed by U.S. Ambassador William Wood, and U.S. and allied military commanders.

“The Congressional delegation also met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is sending his own advisors to Washington as part of the review process," Pelosi says. "President Karzai asked for no commitments from the Speaker's delegation, and none were provided."

However, Pelosi says lawmakers raised a number of issues with Karzai, including:

The continued corruption and lack of effectiveness by the Afghan police;

The level of support being provided by allies;

The resurgence of the Taliban and other terrorist groups;

How the effort in Afghanistan relates to U.S. national security;

The need to increase the Afghan leadership role in building communities through vehicles, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams;

Improving efforts to reduce poppy cultivation and crack down on drug trafficking;

And the need to deal with the threats posed by extremists on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

In the 2008 campaign, Obama repeatedly said U.S. operations in Iraq were detracting from success in Afghanistan and indicated the United States must step up efforts in Afghanistan.

U.S. forces entered Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to confront the Taliban militia that ruled Afghanistan at the time and were harboring terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Although U.S. troops toppled the repressive Taliban from power, Taliban fighters have regained strength since then.

Obama's planned Afghanistan policy has generated opposition from some in his progressive base, but according to a recent Gallup poll, Americans likely view his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan as unfortunate but necessary. Since mid-2008, a majority of Americans have perceived things in Afghanistan to be going very or moderately badly for the United States, and 70 percent currently think the Taliban will retake control if U.S. forces are withdrawn, Gallup says.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan predicted this month that the United States would likely need to stay heavily committed in Afghanistan for the next three to five years, according to Gallup's announcement of its poll. The poll involved interviews with 1,027 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1, the polling organization says.

Obama also has undertaken U.S. operations across the border in Pakistan to attack suspected terrorists.

In addition to Pelosi, the members of the delegation were: Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, Democratic Caucus chair; Rep. George Miller of California, chair of the Education and Labor Committee; Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture; Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, chair of Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming; Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, chair of the House Select Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management; Rep. Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, member of the House Financial Services Committee; and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey, member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Progressives Rally Behind Tom Geoghegan To Take Emanuel's Former House Seat

Two well-known organizations of progressives have emailed supporters to rally campaign funds and support for Tom Geoghegan in the coming March 3 special primary election to elect a Democrat to run for Rahm Emanuel's old House seat.

Emanuel resigned the Chicago-area House seat he held since 2003 this year to become White House chief of staff for President Obama. The winner of the of the March 3 primary will advance to an April 7 special election.

The winner of the Democratic primary is heavily favored to win the 5th Congressional District, as only one Republican -- former Rep. Michael Flanagan -- has held the seat in nearly 100 years. The 5th Congressional District was also formerly held by the disgraced Democrat Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich left his House seat in 2002 to run for governor of Illinois and just this year was removed from that office for corruption. Indeed, it was Blagojevich who defeated Flanagan in 1996 after Flanagan had served just a single term in Congress.

The organizations Democracy for America (DFA) and Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) have separately endorsed Geoghegan (pronounced gay-gun) for the primary. In DFA's case, Geoghegan only narrowly edged rival Mike Quigley in a tie-breaker for the organization's "DFA-List" endorsement.

"As a labor lawyer, Tom has fought for nurses, teachers, machinists, and other union members, as well as workers who lack the protection of a union. His efforts have helped secure healthcare, pensions, and lost wages for thousands of working Americans," DFA Political Director Charles Chamberlain says in an email.

"He has successfully represented countless individuals who were discriminated against in the workplace due to their race, sex, disability, age, or sexual orientation, and he has successfully sued employers who violated sexual harassment laws and the Family and Medical Leave Act," Chamberlain adds. "He's led lawsuits to enforce child labor laws, expand voting rights, crack down on the payday loan industry, and require public health measures to stop the spread of tuberculosis among the homeless.

"Tom Geoghegan has a strong record of service. It's time to put him to work in Congress," Chamberlain says.

PDA, meanwhile, touts such praise for Geoghegan as Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal, who called Geoghegan “a true reformer.” The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg says Geoghegan is “change we can believe in.” And, Kathy Pollit of The Nation calls Geoghegan, “the next Paul Wellstone.”

The late Democratic senator from Minnesota, Wellstone was a hero to progressives nationwide.

PDA says it is soliciting funds for Geoghegan to make media buys in the election.

"Let's build the progressive infrastructure that will allow Obama to make the bold progressive reforms necessary to turn around the ship of state. Electing Tom Geoghegan to Congress is a big step in the right direction," PDA says on its website.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWSWEEK Cover: The Confidence Game

Every day seems to bring bad news, with more on the way, observes Senior Editor Jonathan Alter in the March 2 Newsweek cover "The Confidence Game" (on newsstands Monday, Feb. 23). The nation is in a pessimistic mood and although Obama is popular and refreshing, he is still well short of transformative.

"For all of the legislative achievements of his first month in office, Americans have not yet had their faith in the future restored," Alter writes. Despite Obama's initial stumbles, which include mistakes in Cabinet selection, Alter believes President Obama has a good chance of restoring confidence and pulling America back from the brink.

He writes, "My take on Obama...is that he has a firm grasp of the psychological and substantive challenges of the presidency. Equally important, his 2008 campaign proved that he possesses a superior sense of timing."

In these difficult economic times, the question is: What's a president to do? "If he starts in with the happy talk, he sounds like John McCain saying 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong,' which is what sealed the election for Obama in the first place," Alter writes. "But if he gets too gloomy, he'll scare the bejesus out of the entire world. The balance Obama strikes is to say that things will get worse before they get better, but that they will get better. Now he must convince us that's true."

Alter examines why confidence is the critical piece of what makes a good leader. "Leadership in a peacetime crisis also involves making the right calls on policy--but at bottom, it's dependent on a subtle understanding of how to make people feel better so that they invest in the future," he writes. "Too much confidence makes people and nations hubristic, while those on the receiving end feel conned. Too little confidence breeds timidity and uncertainty, which can be fatal." For years the country has lacked that balance, acting too confident for too long in the unerring genius of markets. Though it's still early in his presidency, President Obama is showing signs of carrying himself in a more naturally confident way, with the right blend of traits. "He's bold enough to add a couple of zeroes to the conversation about spending, but humble enough to utter those three most unpresidential words: 'I screwed up,'" Alter writes.

"Obama is betting on two things: first, that people are so tired of being bamboozled that a little straight talk about their woes will make them feel more in control, the prerequisite for genuine confidence. And second, that he'll get props for trying, that the very effort of riding events instead of letting them ride him will at least offer the illusion of mastery. Once these mental pieces are fastened in place and we're fully 'in recovery,' to use therapy lingo, the enduring problems won't seem so terrifying anymore," he writes.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Capitol Idea: Roland Burris And The Senate Democrats' Mess

By Scott Nance

The Roland Burris situation is a fiasco, but it's just sign of larger disarray for Senate Democrats -- a problem that needs to be corrected if the caucus is to function effectively in the weeks and months to come.

Facing potential perjury charges, Burris apparently is not the honorable public servant he seemed to be just weeks ago. The appointed senator from Illinois is losing support nearly everywhere, and it may just be a matter of time before Burris must resign, leaving a Senate career to be measured only in weeks.

The Burris mess would be just a mild headache if the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus were running at full strength -- but it's not. The 2008 election gave the Democrats what should be their strongest majority in more than 30 years, but that's not how it looks today on Capitol Hill.

To be sure, the Senate Democrats just helped President Obama approve the most massive economic program in decades. But they did so only after needing not only to pull in support from three Republicans, but also having to delay the vote to allow Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio to return to Washington from a family energency.

That's not much room for error, and it doesn't represent the strength and maneuvering room that nearly 60 Democratic senators is supposed to represent. Losing Burris would create one more hole for the Democrats, and they need to be prepared that with Burris gone he likely would be replaced by a special election that could possibly flip the seat to a Republican.

Senate Democrats need to do a better job marshalling their forces. Al Franken, the certified winner of the disputed Minnesota seat, still has yet to be seated pending a legal challenge from former Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.

And while Sen. Ted Kennedy has been able to return from brain cancer treatment for some votes, he has missed others. That all means Senate Democrats need to look at their caucus as a whole and deal with their diminished numbers.

For one, they need to look at how to seat Franken as quickly as possible. For another, despite the Democrats' personal affection for Kennedy and his love for the Senate, it may be time for Kennedy to step aside to allow for a new senator from Massachusetts who can work full time.

And speaking of stepping aside, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ought to give serious consideration to doing so to perhaps allow a stronger figure to lead the Democrats in the current environment.

This is not strictly a criticism of Reid's leadership but also an acknowledgement of the reality that he faces re-election next year from the swing state of Nevada. It may be uncomfortable for Reid to balance the strong partisan work he must do as majority leader with the needs of his somewhat more conservative home state. The Democrats need look no further back than 2004 to see how Tom Daschle was undone in that way in South Dakota.

As much as he may enjoy the job of majority leader, both Reid and Senate Democrats may find some relief from electing a new majority leader from a safer seat to lead the caucus in the battles ahead.

Washington Post columnist David Broder was right when he wrote recently how legislative battles over healthcare, climate change, entitlements and more will make the fight to pass the stimulus seem oh-so-easy by comparison.

That being the case, we need Senate Democrats to be firing on all cylinders.

The publisher of On The Hill and its sister sites, Life, The Universe ... and Politics Live, Scott Nance has covered government and Washington for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NGOs Credit Obama For Shift On Global Mercury Control

After years of inaction on the environment, global ministers today agreed to negotiate a treaty to control global mercury pollution. The agreement resulted from a dramatic shift in the U.S. position by the Obama administration, which now supports the creation of a mercury treaty, according to non-governmental organization that support the treaty. The Bush administration had opposed any legally binding measures.

The NGOs also see the mercury treaty as a beginning step toward further international environmental regulation, including that of carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

Obama has taken several steps to reverse Bush-era environmental policies, promising stronger action on climate and other issues.

"Developing a treaty is a critical first step towards solving the global mercury crisis," says Michael Bender, director of the US Mercury Policy Project and the Zero Mercury Working Group. "This was made possible by President Obama's global view and the inspiration and momentum generated by it."

The treaty will include actions to reduce mercury supply, its use in products and processes, and atmospheric mercury emissions, which will ultimately reduce human exposure to mercury globally. The preparations for negotiations on the global treaty will start later this year, with discussions beginning in earnest in 2010 with a view to wrapping up by 2013, the NGOs say in a statement.

"After the U.S. announcement, many other countries jumped on board, notably China and India, who had opposed a treaty up until this meeting," says Bender. "The global good will generated by President Obama clearly inspired other delegations to work through difficult issues and build consensus for treaty."

"This consensus is a huge breakthrough," says Elena Lymberidi-Settimo of the European Environmental Bureau and the Zero Mercury Working Group. "The treaty will ensure that the EU and other countries of the world make a serious commitment to reduce global mercury emissions, supply and demand."

Mercury is a global pollutant that travels long distances. Its most toxic form -- methylmercury -- accumulates in large predatory fish and is taken up through eating fish, with the worst impacts on babies in utero and small children.

"With the climate change negotiations coming up soon, this agreement on mercury sets the stage for other international environmental agreements to follow," notes Bender.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Pelosi Tells House Chairmen: 'Remember, We're Frugal, Too'

House Democrats may have just helped enact the largest federal economic legislation in decades, but now they don't want the $787 billion price tag to haunt them later. With President Obama's economic stimulus now law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking to burnish her party's credentials as thrifty, as well.

Pelosi sent a letter today to House committee chairs, asking them to schedule oversight hearings to examine the budgets of federal agencies under their jurisdiction.

In the letter, Speaker Pelosi lays the blame for the profligacy on the Bush administration, writing: "As our nation continues to confront severe budget deficits as a result of unsound economic policy and lax regulation over the last eight years, it is essential that, as we advance our priorities, House Committees also conduct rigorous oversight of all aspects of federal spending and government operations to help achieve deficit reduction and long-term fiscal responsibility."

"This effort builds on the House Rules change proposed by Congressman John Tanner and adopted last month by the House of Representatives and is consistent with President Obama's call for long-term fiscal discipline," Pelosi adds.

Beyond the politics, the federal government's budget deficit and debt ran high during the Bush years and will need to be tamed to maintain integrity of U.S. government finances. To this end, Obama has scheduled an economic responsibility forum to be held Monday to start to deal with the thorny issue of federal entitlement spending.

Obama will have to reign in entitlement programs to make a dent in the government's financial health.

For her part, Pelosi asks the chairman of each of the House committees to prepare a schedule for these budget oversighte hearings "in concert with your regular hearing schedule so this thorough review can begin without delay." In addition, Pelosi sets a deadline of setting these schedules to happen no later than March 13.

"Thank you for your commitment to improving the efficiency of our government by providing accountability to taxpayers and restoring long term fiscal soundness," Pelosi tells the chairmen.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

In New York, GOP Eager To Test Democrats' Political Durability

Republicans seem eager to test just how politically potent President Obama and congressional Democrats remain in the wake of passage of a massive economic stimulus bill. In what is also a test of the feistiness of the new GOP chairman, the party is investing heavily more than a month ahead of a special congressional election.

The March 31 special election will fill a vacancy left when New York Gov. David Paterson tapped Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to become the Empire State's junior senator. Gillibrand, who today fills the seat left when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, won the Upstate 20th Congressional District in 2006 -- the year Democrats retook the majority status in the House and Senate.

The special election will pit Republican James Tedisco against Democratic businessman Scott Murphy. Democrats have complained that Tedisco doesn't live within the district. The largely rural district lies on the eastern side of the state.

"The Republican National Committee is going up on television with ads in support of New York state Assemblyman Jim Tedisco in his special election bid in the state's 20th district, an early sign that newly elected chairman Michael Steele plans to wade into downballot races to reassert the party's competitiveness across the country and in the northeast in particular," Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza says.

Cillizza says the GOP is spending $80,000 on the ad buy.

The RNC released Cillizza's blog post as its own press release.

Holding the district for Democrats will be made more difficult as there reportedly are 70,000 more Republicans registered in the district than Democrats. Gillibrand is said to have been popular personally in her old district and has endorsed Murphy. Tedisco reportedly leads in polling by a "slight margin."

Cillizza notes that President Obama carried Gillibrand's former district by three points in 2008, but went for George W. Bush by eight and seven points in 2004 and 2000, respectively.

Steele and other Republicans clearly are hoping the bloom is at least somewhat off the rose among voters as to how they view Obama and congressional Democrats since the new president came into office and muscled through a massive, $787 billion economic stimulus program.

If Republicans can make a successful argument in NY-20 next month, the GOP would be emboldened against Obama and Democrats in other policy areas -- and potentially have a template campaign going into the 2010 mid-term elections.

Prior to Gillibrand taking the seat, Republicans Benjamin Gilman and John Sweeney represented the district successively since 1993.

Two relatively famous Democrats also held the 20th District in years past, however. President Franklin Roosevelt's son, FDR Jr., served as its representative from 1949 through 1955. The late women's rights leader Bella Abzug represented the district from 1973 through 1977.

Whether Republicans can win Gillibrand's old seat will be a stern test. Republicans were just swept out of the Northeast entirely last year when the last GOP House member from the region -- Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut -- fell to defeat.

"The Republican Party will no longer ignore the Northeast," Cillizza quoted Steele as saying. "Our conservative principles are applicable to every county and corner of this country."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Expert: Fixing Economy A 'Long Road,' But Stimulus Should Help Quickly

Improving the U.S. economy will require long-term attention, but the effects of the huge economic stimulus President Obama signed this week will begin to be felt "relatively quickly," according to a top economist with a progressive Washington think tank.

"We have a long road back to get our economy back on track. It's going to take quite a while before we see our economy back to where it should be. But the effects of the economy reinvestment and recovery measures that are being taken, we'll see those relatively quickly," says Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the Center for American Progress. "We'll start seeing the rate of job loss becoming less; we'll start seeing things starting to stabilize in the economy; and in about a year we should really start seeing the corner turn to a stronger economy."

Obama this week signed into law the massive, $787 billion economic recovery program he has been strongly advocating for since before his Jan. 20 Inauguration. Obama and others say the stimulus plan will create or save between 3 million and 4 million American jobs.

The U.S. has been spiraling in a deepening recession for months, with employers shedding 3.6 million jobs over the last 13 months -- 598,000 in January alone. January was the worst month of job losses since 1974. Unemployment has spiked above 7 percent and consumer spending has contracted sharply. Many observers liken the current situation to the worst economic condition since the Great Depression.

Echoing sentiments from Obama and other stimulus supporters, Ettlinger says that most provisions in the Obama stimulus will aid the nation in both the short and long terms.

"It's one of the features of the package is that most of these provisions are two-fors," he says in a new Web video. "We get something that helps stop the downward spiral we're in, and we get investments in some of the things that we have been failing to invest in for way to long and that we absolutely need for strong, long-term growth. For example, measures such as investments in infrastructure, energy independence, health care technologies; these are things that we absolutely need for our long-term growth, but they'll also help us create jobs in the short term and get our economy back on track."

Further, Ettlinger offers insight to prevent a repeat of the current economic crisis -- saying that two factors have to be dealt with.

"What got our economy into such deep trouble was basically two things. First of all, we had eight years where we didn't really have strong economic growth. We didn't have rising incomes; we didn't have the fundamental things that strengthen the middle class, that really build a strong underpinning to a really genuinely strong economy. The other thing is that we let our regulatory structure fail to oversee the financial markets," he says. "So, to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future, we really need to focus on the basics in the economy to make sure that incomes are rising and to also make sure that we have a regulatory structure in place and regulators who believe in regulating the financial markets to make sure that they don't run the economy into a ditch the way they did this time."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Study: Election Law Litigation Remains At More Than Double Rate Before 2000 Election

The amount of election law litigation in the 2007-2008 election season remained at more than double the rate before the controversial 2000 election, according to a new study by a Loyola Law School professor. In addition, reversing a recent trend, more litigation is ending up in federal court than in prior years, the study finds.

"In 2008, we did not exceed the all-time high of 361 cases reached during the 2004 election," said Richard Hasen, professor of law at Loyola Law School Los Angeles and author of the study. "But with 297 cases in 2008, following 216 cases in 2007, the country's rate of election litigation still averages more than double what it did before 2000."

The extraordinary election of 2000 found Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore essentially deadlocked, with the election result coming down to the vote count in Florida. A weeks-long legal contest ensued before the U.S. Supreme Court ended a Florida recount, selecting Bush as the 43rd president.

In the pre-2000 period, the country averaged 94 election law cases per year. The post-2000 number is at 237. Hasen says the amount of litigation is troubling and that there's every reason to think the litigation explosion will continue in 2012 and beyond.

"Unless we take steps to improve the electoral process during the 'off-season,' we always face the danger of another Bush v. Gore," Hasen says.


Coleman Vs. Franken


The spotlight today is on legal wrangling over a disputed Senate seat from Minnesota. The former Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman, is suing to return to office. Minnesota state officials have certified Democrat Al Franken as the winner of the election by a razor-thin margin. Franken, a former television comedian, has not been seated in the Senate while the court case continues on. In this case, the dispute leaves the Northstar state with just a single sitting senator, Democrat Amy Klobuchar.

The Minnesota case demostrates that there are real consequences when elections are thrown into court.

Klobuchar reportedly jokes that "There's not a whole lot of friction in our Senate delegation right now," but being the lone senator from the state has put a strain on her staff in terms of constituent services.

Hasen's study reveals another interesting shift: More cases are being filed in federal rather than state court. Right after the 2000 controversy, well over 80 percent of cases were filed in state court. Since 2004, however, the numbers have declined. In 2008, only 54 percent of election law cases were filed in state court, the lowest level since 1997.

"The shift to federal courts is a surprise," Hasen says. "Litigants might be shifting to federal courts because there are more federal constitutional and statutory questions raised now in light of partial reforms since 2000, or some litigants may expect to get better results in federal court rather than state court. The shift deserves further study."

Hasen's study appears in a paper, "The Democracy Canon," which is available on his website.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

New Obama Economic Program To Fund New Advanced Energy Technologies

In addition to funding they deployment of existing systems to enhance energy efficiency and create "green jobs," the new $787 billion economic stimulus program will also fund the next-generation of clean energy technology.

The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, as the massive stimulus program is known, will more fully fund a new federal energy research agency known as "ARPA-E," lawmakers say.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency-E is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which funded early creation of the Internet and other technologies now used commercially.

“The cost of energy will profoundly affect the future competitiveness of the American economy, and preventing global climate change will be impossible without some fundamental reshaping of our energy future.” says Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and early supporter of ARPA-E. “To break out, we need an energy research effort modeled after the Manhattan project, or the Apollo mission to the moon. Since its creation, ARPA-E has never been sufficiently funded. But with this substantial investment, ARPA-E can finally start to spur breakthrough energy research that will break our nation’s dependence on oil.”

The stimulus package signed into law yesterday by President Obama includes $400 million for the ARPA-E at the Department of Energy. ARPA-E was first established by law in the the America COMPETES Act passed into law early in the last Congress. The America COMPETES Act was approved in response to recommendations contained in the National Academies’ “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report and the Council on Competitiveness’ “Innovate America” report, which each warned that the United States risks slipping in its leadership position in R&D unless action is taken.

“I’m especially glad to see funding that will establish ARPA-E, eighteen months after it was signed into law,” says Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee. “Besides pursing the high-risk, high-reward research, I believe ARPA-E is uniquely positioned to be the bridge to the new energy economy—and, with it, the 'green' jobs we need, the same way DARPA formed the underpinnings of the multi-billion dollar defense industry.”

In addition to ARPA-E funding, the stimulus bill includes funding for the Department of Energy Office of Science that "will put scientists and engineers to work advancing our energy independence and protecting our environment by researching materials science, climate science, carbon sequestration, biofuels, advanced computing, fusion energy, high-energy physics, and nuclear physics," according to a statement from Gordon's committee.

"The investments will include much-needed lab and instrumentation upgrades to enable our scientists and engineers to do the world-class research we need to make breakthroughs in energy," the statement adds.

“This package makes much-needed investments in science and technology as the path to ensuring our national economic competitiveness,” says Gordon. “These are tough budgetary times, but the need for the U.S. to develop new technologies is greater than ever because of the economic conditions. The science and technology investments are ‘two-fers.’ We’re putting people to work immediately—from scientists to engineers to teachers to construction crews—but the investments in science and technology will pay dividends in the benefit to our long term competitiveness. We wouldn’t want to create jobs today only to lose them to foreign competition in the future.”

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

New Stimulus Will Aid End-of-life Care, Hospice Workers Say

Terminally ill patients receiving hospice and palliative care at the end of their lives will benefit from the huge economic stimulus bill that President Obama signed yesterday, according to an organization that represents end-of-life caregivers.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the official name of the $787 billion stimulus program, includes a one-year moratorium on cuts in Medicare funding for the more than 4,700 hospice programs nationwide, says a statement from the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), and its advocacy arm, the Alliance for Care at the End of Life.

The new law ensures that access to quality and compassionate end-of-life care will be maintained for the more than 1.4 million patients and their family caregivers who seek hospice each year, the statement says.

Over the past year, the organizations say that they and other hospice advocates from across the country, have been working to overturn a 2008 regulation issued by the Medicare program, which eliminates a key component of the Medicare hospice reimbursement formula known as the budget neutrality adjustment factor (BNAF).

The phased funding cut would have taken $135 million away from quality and compassionate end-of-life care in fiscal year 2009, and has already jeopardized the survival of many hospice programs, particularly smaller, more rural ones, the organizations' statement says.

Approximately 3,000 hospice provider jobs were threatened to be cut this year, with deeper job losses expected in fiscal year 2010 as the funding cut were to enter its second year, it adds.

The effort to halt the hospice rate cuts has been underway since the Bush administration announced its intention to eliminate the BNAF in its fiscal year 2009 federal budget proposal.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers worked together to have the hospice provision included in the massive economic stimulus package that Obama signed yesterday in a ceremony in Denver, Colo.

"From the start, our efforts have been about ensuring access to high-quality and compassionate end-of-life care for Americans coping with life-limiting illness. We thank our supporters at the grassroots level and in Congress for securing a one-year moratorium on cuts in hospice funding. It's important that we continue to build upon the momentum that we have now to ensure that patient access is protected in future years by permanently overturning these devastating rate cuts," says J. Donald Schumacher, president and CEO of NHPCO.

NHPCO says that despite bipartisan opposition in Congress, the Medicare program had began implementation of the final rule on October 1, 2008. "If allowed to move forward in FY10, this misguided rule will slash hospice payments by approximately $2.18 billion in the first five years, despite the fact that hospice has been found to be a cost saver for the Medicare program," Schumacher says.

A 2007 Duke University study found that hospice reduced Medicare costs by an average of $2,300 per hospice patient, amounting to a total of more than $2 billion in savings in a single year, NHPCO says.

With the one-year moratorium in place, NHPCO and the Alliance for Care at the End of Life say they and other hospice advocates will turn their attention to working with the new administration and Congress on permanently overturning the Medicare rule to eliminate the BNAF.

NHPCO says its leadership is meeting with Medicare officials tomorrow to discuss the subsequent process necessary to address the one-year moratorium.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Dems Credit Obama Stimulus On Senate Gains

Saying they "needed nearly every one of" their members in the Senate, Democrats are crediting the gains they've made in the Senate for President Obama today signing the $787 billion economic stimulus program into law.

Obama signed the massive bill today in a ceremony in Denver, Colo., the same city where he was nominated by Democrats as their 2008 candidate for president.

"What I am signing is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It is a plan that’s been put together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. And it is a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability," Obama said before signing the bill into law. "And we expect you, the American people, to hold us accountable for the results. That is why we have created Recovery.gov – so every American can go online and see how their money is being spent."

Obama strongly lobbied for passage of the stimulus plan, saying it was needed to avert catastrophe in the U.S. economy. Obama says the new law, the largest single economic measure in decades, will save or create some 3 million to 4 million jobs.

"This landmark legislation will save or create 3.5 million jobs and provide a tax cut for 95% of American workers. It will get the economy moving now, while investing in progress for tomorrow," says Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the new chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

"To pass this bill, we needed nearly every one of the 58 Democratic senators that your time, money, and effort helped elect," Menendez says in an email to supporters. "If you've ever wondered how your support for the DSCC made a difference, this is Exhibit A of how quickly and boldly an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate can -- and will -- act to solve our country's toughest challenges."

The final number of Democratic senators for the current 111th Congress remains in question as Republican Norm Coleman continues to wage a court battle against Democrat Al Franken for a Senate seat from Minnesota. State officials declared Franken the winner but Franken has not yet been seated.

In his email, Menendez notes most Republicans voted against Obama's stimulus bill. All Republicans in the House rejected it, and just three GOP senators -- all moderates -- supported the stimulus. Still, those three Senate Republicans, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were vital in getting the stimulus approved.

"We tried to work with the Republicans, but it is clear that their Senate leadership is eager to filibuster the Democratic agenda whenever they can. In essence, they're betting against the American people," Menendez says.

Menendez adds, "Let me be clear, this stimulus package is not the end of our work. But it's a substantial down payment on the long-term investments that will put our economy back on a sound footing and position our country for a better future ..."

Menendez questions the politics of Republican opposition to the stimulus.

"Amazingly, the other side thinks that by undermining our recovery plan, they will see political gains in 2010," he says. "But I'm betting on our combined strength to find the right candidates and run campaigns that can win this ideological battle at the ballot box. That's why the work the DSCC is doing now to lay the foundation for victory next year is so critically important."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

With Bloom In Key Auto Bailout Role, Labor's Love Affair With Obama Continues

A major labor union is trumpeting President Obama's selection of Ron Bloom to be involved in the expected federal rescue of the U.S. auto industry.

A former investment banker Bloom will act as a key adviser to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. General Motors and Chrysler are due today to submit restructuring plans the federal government. Geithner will oversee the auto initiative along with top White House economic aide Lawrence Summers.

Bloom also previously served as a special assistant to the United Steelworkers (USW) International president, according to a USW statement.

"Solving the problems of the domestic auto industry is a monumental challenge, but Ron has tremendous ability," says USW President Leo Gerard. "There's not much you haven't seen when you've restructured 50 companies in bankruptcy," Gerard adds, referring to firms Bloom worked to revive in his position as head of the USW's corporate research, industry analysis and pattern bargaining department.

The appointment of Bloom continues a longstanding close relationship between Obama and organized labor. Labor worked hard to get Obama elected last year and has generally supported the new president's initiatives since he was sworn into office last month, including a new economic task force headed by Vice President Joe Biden.

The USW says that Bloom brought a unique perspective to negotiations when he joined the USW, specializing in dealing with corporations facing financial difficulties or undertaking corporate transactions. With an MBA from Harvard and experience as a vice president at the investment banking firm of Lazard Freres & Co., and his own firm, Keilin and Bloom, he had experience in corporate finance that enabled him to suggest novel solutions.

"His restructuring plans are recognized for preserving thousands of manufacturing jobs and health care benefits for workers and retirees alike," the USW statement says.

GM and Chrysler have been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn and both are seeking longer-term stability coming off an earlier injection of federal assistance just prior to Obama assuming office.

While Bloom has earned the respect of corporate CEOs and financiers, such as financier Wilbur Ross Jr., he maintains his long-held belief that unions are key to a solid middle class in America, saying at a recent conference organized by the group Campaign for America's Future, "We stand without apology for the principle of paying people well...that is both morally right, and we believe the right way to organize and economy."

The Obama administration was lucky to find a person who so deeply believes in organized labor and so clearly understands corporate finance, Gerard says. "Saving the domestic auto industry is crucial to the economic renewal of the U.S." says Gerard. "The steel, glass, auto parts, tires, and paper industries produce products for this industry and employ a quarter million of our members alone."

Bloom is "very passionate in his belief that manufacturing is essential to a healthy economy," adds Gerard. "The auto industry relationship to manufacturing is as important as Goldman Sachs or Citibank is to the financial community," says Gerard. "Ron knows this."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Even In Dismal Economy, U.S. Must Invest In Space Program, Obama Science Pick Says

The United States must continue to invest in a robust federal R&D program -- particularly in its space program -- even as it grapples with a faltering economy, according to President Obama's pick as White House science adviser.

"U.S. scientific leadership requires both creating an environment that encourages private investment in research and development while maintaining strong and balanced federal research programs that support the promising areas of R&D that are too far from obvious application, too uncertain in outcome, too costly, or too related to public as opposed to private goods to attract private funding," says physicist John Holdren, nominated by Obama to become director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

"In this connection, I want to give special mention to the importance of R&D in our space program. Maintaining and expanding our capabilities in space is sometimes regarded as a 'luxury' we should do less of in the face of more pressing earthbound concerns," Holdren adds, speaking last week at his Senate confirmation hearing. "But that would be false economy. Space is crucial to our national defense; to civil as well as military communications and geo-positioning; to weather forecasting and storm monitoring; to observation and scientific study of the condition of our home planet’s land, vegetation, oceans, and atmosphere; and to scientific study and exploration looking 'outward' that is increasing our understanding of the physical universe and our place in it."

Although the nation faces "immense challenges" in terms of the economy and other matters, "it is equally clear that science and technology can be key ingredients in turning those challenges into opportunities," Holdren says.

A high-profile researcher who recently served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Holdren also decries what he terms as the “boom and bust” cycles that have dominated federal support for science and technology over the last four decades as "inefficient and disruptive of scientific progress."

Every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt has had a science adviser, but Congress formally created the OSTP by law in 1976 as a conduit for coordinating federal policies and budgets.

"In concert with helping to nurture the R&D enterprise in general, OSTP has an important function in promoting the translation of the results of R&D into new products and services that benefit Americans through widespread application," Holdren says. "This country has long demonstrated a high capacity for turning novel ideas into new businesses and improved services in domains ranging from medical diagnostics, to instant access to information, to entertainment. Fostering this capacity for translating science and technology into widespread benefit will be crucial in rebuilding our economy as well in addressing our most pressing challenges in energy, environment, health, and national security.

"Development of new technologies and providing incentives for their widespread adoption will be particularly crucial at the demanding intersection of energy, national security, and climate change," Holdren adds. "Providing the affordable and reliable energy that our economic well-being requires while addressing the dangers of global climate change and over-dependence on oil from politically fragile regions are challenges demanding the utmost in collaboration among the relevant executive branch agencies, the Congress, and the private sector."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.