Elections Matter

by hilzoy

The House Democrats have completed their 100 hour agenda in well under 100 hours. The LATimes has a useful summary of the bills and votes here, at the bottom. I find the Democrats' discipline nothing short of amazing, for Democrats.

Despite a Republican effort to derail it, the Senate has now passed its own ethics reform package:

"The Senate legislation, hailed by proponents as the most significant ethics reform since Watergate, would ban gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists, and would force lawmakers to attach their names to special-interest provisions and pet projects that they slip into bills. Lawmakers would have to pay charter rates on corporate jets, not the far-cheaper first-class rates they pay now.

The House earlier this month approved similar language as part of an internal rules change. But other portions of the Senate-passed measure would carry the weight of law and would have impacts far beyond the Capitol. The House would have to pass comparable legislation for those provisions to take effect.

One of those legislative provisions would force lobbyists to publicly disclose the small campaign donations they collect from clients and "bundle" into large donations to politicians. Bundling is a way for lobbyists to contribute far more money to candidates and thus wield more influence than they could by making individual contributions, which are currently limited to $2,100 per candidate for each election cycle. Lavish gatherings thrown by lobbyists and corporate interests at party conventions would be banned.

Former lawmakers would no longer be able to engage in any lobbying activity for two years after they leave office. And, in most cases, the lobbyist spouses of senators would no longer be able to take advantage of their family status to influence the colleagues and staffs of their husbands and wives. The only exception is for spouses who had been lobbying for at least one year before their husband or wife was elected."

In addition, the Senate package included another step towards real transparency and accountability:

"The Senate joined the House this week by voting to make it easier for the public to track an obscure form of trade legislation that has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in tax savings to favored corporations.

As part of a broad ethics reform package, the Senate voted 96-to-2 on Thursday to require lawmakers to publicly disclose details about so-called tariff suspensions, which allow individual companies to escape paying import taxes on a range of products brought into the United States. The legislation brands the tariff measures as a variety of congressional earmark and requires the same range of disclosures now mandated for earmarks.

Under the new Senate rules, legislators would be required to disclose when they slip a tariff suspension into a larger bill. The tax break must be justified in writing, list the company that will benefit and calculate the cost to the U.S. Treasury. The information must be posted in a searchable form on the Internet at least two days before Congress votes on a measure. (...)

Most tariff suspensions are designed to benefit just one corporation. Few of the measures identify the company that initiated the legislation. Many do not identify the product involved, instead using strings of characters and numbers linked to a telephone-book sized tariff schedule.

That lack of transparency obscured the fact that the largest beneficiaries have been domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations. In The Post's study, eight of the 10 companies that stood to benefit most were owned by or affiliated with German and Swiss companies. For example, companies linked to Bayer and a recent spin-off corporation initiated more than 100 bills in the last session of Congress, with a potential cost to taxpayers of more than $44 million."

But if you really want to see what a difference an election makes, check out Patrick Leahy questioning Alberto Gonzales about Maher Arar in this video. Here's a transcript (from Crooks and Liars), though it's worth watching the video just to see Leahy's righteous fury:

Leahy: "We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held and he'd be investigated. We also knew damn well if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."

Recently, whenever life gets me down, I think to myself: Patrick Leahy is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee! -- and suddenly I find myself grinning again. It's way better than raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. (Well, maybe not whiskers. Not on kittens. But I digress.) It's going to be a whole new ballgame for Alberto Gonzales. And not a moment too soon.

Of course, as I always say round about this point in a post about the Democrats, they still have lots of time left in which to disappoint me. But so far, they are making me proud.

***

UPDATE: Via War and Piece, more complete audio of this part of the hearing, from the CBC.

Honestly, Gonzales seems to have no idea that he is actually supposed to answer questions from the Congress, and to answer them forthrightly. The idea that the Congress has a right to oversee the actions and policies of the Executive simply does not seem to have registered. Of course, he has had no reason to consider what actual oversight would be like before now. Still, he seems completely and hopelessly out of his depth.

The idea that this is the guy in charge of law enforcement in the US is truly frightening.

Comments

[lily]

I'm impressed. Yes, so far, so good.

[cleek]

the Democrats, they still have lots of time left in which to disappoint me. But so far, they are making me proud

ditto.

[Nell]

Now to put teeth into the Medicare part D price-negotiating (it allows rather than requires the govt to negotiate, and lacks the incentive that Big Pharma has to negotiate with the VA -- drugs come off the formulary if the company won't negotiate).

It's a start, but it really needs to be a lot better to change things for the people affected.

[Katherine]

Yes: this is also my feeling about Leahy at judiciary. Bright copper kettles, and warm woolen mittens.

I've been waiting about three years for that exchange with Gonzales...I hope it's matched by the follow-up.

[KCinDC]

Another point is that with Leahy rather than Specter, we don't have this sort of foolishness about oaths.

[hilzoy]

OT: Enough to make me seriously consider becoming illiterate.

[Jesurgislac]

But if you really want to see what a difference an election makes, check out Patrick Leahy questioning Alberto Gonzales about Maher Arar in this video.

*pours champagne all round*

[Hartmut]

Don't praise the day before the night comes.
Bush has no reason not to veto anything and I doubt that there is a veto-proof majority.
And let's not forget those signing statements.
Nonetheless, I hope that the Dems don't run out of steam soon.

[Anarch]

hilzoy: waitafnordingminnit...

...but others say it will be a young-adult book based on the former grade school teacher's experiences with charity causes in Latin America.

Former grade school teacher?

Former Grade School TEACHER?!?!

...

Illiteracy isn't enough. I think I shall have to pray, and weep, for the destruction of children throughout the country. It's the only way to be sure.

[bril]

"Despite a Republican effort to derail it, the Senate has now passed its own ethics reform package"

How can we have a reasonable debate when someone makes such a dishonest statement?

I guess Hilzoy isn't familiar with a Mr. Harry Reid. Mr. Reid worked awfully hard to derail the package. And since she hasn't heard of him I feel it important to let her know he is a Democrat and not a Republican.

Yes, thank goodness American's elected so many moderate Democrats so that when Harry Reid tried to stall the reform package he couldn't. Just out of curiousity how did those moderate Democrats get so much power to stop Reid? Couldn't have anything to do with all those Republicans that sided with them, could it?

Yep... Republican derailment in action.

The Republicans offered a more effective solution in the form of a Gregg Amendment. In many ways more powerful that the reform package put forward by the Democrats.

I can only assume that if a Republican offers a package that might be more strict in some ways that is an attempt at derailment in Hilzoy's mind. If moderate Democrats side with Republicans to block Reid's efforts is that derailment, too?

Is this Hilzoy's definition of derailment?

“Despite reaching a good-faith agreement with the Democratic leadership that my fiscally responsible amendment, A Second Look at Wasteful Spending, would be taken up at another time, I was disappointed to learn that objections from another Democratic senator effectively blocked that agreement. I fully support ethics reform – in fact, I offered my amendment to strengthen the ethics reform package – so will continue to push for a vote on this reasonable proposal to reduce wasteful federal spending. I cannot support ending debate on this bill until the Senate has had a chance to fully debate and vote on a proposal to improve the government’s stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to achieve that goal.”

There's no need to try and offer up a reasonable debate when the person you might differ with is so dishonest.

[Bruce Baugh]

We should auction off the rights to sell sackcloth and ashes to Bril. Whoever wins will be set for the next few years, at least.

[bril]

By the way... anyone know who voted against the it. I wonder why they did?

[Andrew]

While I am sympathetic to the argument that the Senate's ethics reform package might not be as strong as it is were it not for some Republican gadflies, I am quite confident that accusations of dishonesty are a violation of posting rules unless proven. Since bril included no links in that comment, there is no evidence even offered to support bril's claim. Therefore, bril, you are warned: violate the rules again and you will receive a temporary suspension of your commenting privileges. If you wish to argue that Reid attempted to undermine the ethics reform, you are free to do so, but you should offer links to bolster your case and you will refrain from making unproven allegations of dishonesty. Thank you.

[KCinDC]

If the Republicans are such great proponents of ethics reform, I wonder why they never thought to pass such legislation during all the years they were in control of Congress.

[John Thullen]

If Bril's quote is from Jim Demint (the same could have been said by others), let Bril unpack what Demint means by "wasteful spending" and discover the hypocrisy of the individual now claiming, like a 12-year- old, to pretend to side with the Democratic majority.

Some research in the Red State archives will unveil the fact that Demint includes most of the expenditures of the Federal government under the rubric "wasteful spending", including Social Security and Medicare.

Demint's innocent face as he doth protest is sweet.

Up with hypocrisy. Demint and Bril get around the human frailty of putting on their pants one leg at a time by not wearing pants and strutting about declaiming the consistency of the draft up their shorts.

Milton Berle would be proud.

Hilzoy could end each of her posts on the new Congress with "Over to you Bril."

[Andrew]

A simple rule: the politicians out of favor are always a lot more interested in ethics reform than those in power. Which is why it is to Speaker Pelosi's credit that she put ethics reform up front (although I think she would have been wiser to use a first ten days rule; the first 100 hours is a touch confusing, since it's legislative hours). I think the maverick Republicans like Jm DeMint who pushed Reid to accept a tougher bill deserve a tetch of credit as well.

[Bruce Baugh]

That seems like a good summary, Andrew. I endorse it. :)

[muddy]

"Recently, whenever life gets me down, I think to myself: Patrick Leahy is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee! -- and suddenly I find myself grinning again."

I ran into Senator Leahy on the street before the election. I said to him that I was really excited that if Democrats got the majority he'd be Chair of the Judiciary Committee. He looked pretty excited about it too, in fact he was damn near sparkling. He said he hoped so, it was past time someone put a firm hand on the tiller.

[russell]

How can we have a reasonable debate when someone makes such a dishonest statement?

As soon as I read this, somehow I knew it was bril, even before I scrolled down to the end of the comment.

By the way... anyone know who voted against the it. I wonder why they did?

I can answer your first question.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/

Click on "Ethics reform bill approved by Senate", then on the highlighted phrase "96-2 vote".

Here's the breakdown.

96 Ayes.
Two Nays from Coburn (R-OK) and Hatch (R-UT).
Two Not Voting from Brownback (R-KS) and Johnson (D-SD).

You'll have to ask the four Senators named above why they voted as they did.

Thanks -

[russell]

But if you really want to see what a difference an election makes, check out Patrick Leahy questioning Alberto Gonzales about Maher Arar in this video.

The image that runs through my head a lot lately is of walking into the kitchen at night, turning on the lights, and seeing lots of roaches running for the dark corners as fast as they can.

Leahy is a great guy. I'd say I wonder if Cheney regrets his trash talk at this point, but to be honest I don't think Cheney has the regret gene.

I won't say the next couple of years will be fun, because this isn't a game. I will say it will be satisfying to see some measure of plain decency return to US government.

Lots of folks spent lots of money, time, and effort over the last year to turn Congress around. It could have turned out to be a case of "meet the new boss", and no doubt some of that will emerge over the next couple of years.

For the moment, however, I will say it's damned gratifying to see somebody insisting on plain old decency, honesty, and accountability. To be completely honest, it puts a lump in my throat. I feel like there is hope for this country, which is something I haven't felt for quite a while.

If I knew what he drank, and it wasn't a violation of the ethics rules, I'd send Leahy a bottle of his favorite. Short of that, I think I'll call his office and say thanks.

Thanks -

[CaseyL]

Johnson (D-SD) didn't vote because he's still in the hospital.

[gwangung]

Johnson (D-SD) didn't vote because he's still in the hospital.

Will bril still try to hold him accountable?

[CaseyL]

Will bril still try to hold him accountable?

You must, absolutely must read Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower, a book about pre-WWI Europe and America. One chapter, "End of a Dream," focuses on the US from 1890-1902; and the main character is Thomas B. Reed, the Republican Congressman from Maine who was elected Speaker of the House.

Reed came to the post determined to end what was known as "the silent quorum," where members who were present in the Chamber could refuse to vote, thus denying the necessary quorum for a vote to be counted. Everyone knew he was going to force the issue, and the day he did, all hell broke loose in the Chamber. Congressmen leaped from desk to desk to try and escape; Reed ordered the doors shut and locked; the Representative from Texas tried to kick the doors down. Fistfights broke out. It was a total melee.

And two Members of Congress, who had been too ill to attend the session, were carried in on their cots, so they could vote with Reed.

So, there's precedent for dragging someone in from their sickbed :)

[KCinDC]

There's also Clair Engle of California:

Engle was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1958 and began serving in 1959. He fell victim to brain cancer in 1963, however, which left him partially paralyzed, and he missed several Congressional sessions in 1963 and 1964.

On June 10, 1964, during the roll call for the historic, successful effort to break the filibuster on what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when the clerk reached "Mr. Engle," there was no reply. The tumor had robbed Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote ("aye").[1] Few who witnessed Engle's brave act forgot it. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of America's towering 20th century legislative achievements.

[Nell]

It wasn't only or even primarily DeMint who pushed Reid; DeMint expected his amendment expanding the class of banned earmarks to fail, and merely use it to embarrass Reid -- but Tester and Webb were among the senators who kept it from being tabled, along with Feingold, Kerry, and Obama.

Robert Reich's thoughts on the inadequacies of the 100-hour legislation are worth reading.

[Nell]

walking into the kitchen at night, turning on the lights, and seeing lots of roaches running for the dark corners as fast as they can.

That's exactly what the purge of U.S. attorneys is all about (helping keep the light off a little longer).

[Andrew]

DeMint expected his amendment expanding the class of banned earmarks to fail

So? (Your link doesn't back up your claim he was trying to embarrass Reid that I could see, btw.) Half the problem with Congress is that too often people don't bring up bills that they believe are the right thing because they're afraid they'll fail. Say, a bill to cut off funding to Iraq after a certain date, just off the top of my head. I don't expect such a bill to survive a presidential veto, but at least the attempt would indicate some effort on the part of Congress to do the right thing.

[Nell]

Andrew, if you're determined to view his amendment as sincere anti-earmark zealotry on DeMint's part, I can't prove otherwise to you.

But why would Republicans bring up a bill to strengthen earmark reform that they knew the Majority Leader opposed, and thought would fail, if not to be able to point to it as an example of Reid (and by extension Democratic) hypocrisy on ethics reform? I'm not allowed to mindread other commenters, but I've followed Congressional kabuki dancing long enough to know what the heck was going on here.

Webb and three other of the Dems who voted not to table DeMint's amendment announced they were doing so ahead of time, to rally a few more Dem votes. It worked, and it sandbagged DeMint. I'm proud of Webb on the substance and the politics.

Similarly, do you think that the Republican House member who made a big deal of Samoan initially being left out of the minimum wage increase was earnestly concerned for Somoan workers, too, and it had nothing to do with embarrassing Pelosi? That's another case where the grandstanding effort backfired by giving Dems an opportunity to push Pelosi further than she intended to go.

[Andrew]

I have no idea if it was sincere or politics on DeMint's part. I would not be at all surprised if you were correct. I simply noted that the article didn't substantiate your claim.

[Andrew]

Although I do find it telling that you're proud of Webb 'on the substance.' It's not surprising; most people on either side of the left/right divide think their side does things for the right reasons and the other side does things for the wrong reasons. But I can't help but chuckle to see it laid out so plainly.

[Nell]

Half the problem with Congress is that too often people don't bring up bills that they believe are the right thing because they're afraid they'll fail. Say, a bill to cut off funding to Iraq after a certain date, just off the top of my head. I don't expect such a bill to survive a presidential veto, but at least the attempt would indicate some effort on the part of Congress to do the right thing.

I wish like anything Congress would pass a bill next week that would prevent your or any other service member going to Iraq in the near future, Andrew, and that would bring back those who are there.

In fact, already quite a few bills have been introduced wrt Iraq that would be vetoed if passed.

But Congressional shyness about prospects for passage or veto-proofness are only part of the problem -- the other half is the tut-tutting reception such bills get from "sensible centrists" on grounds that the bills aren't sufficiently serious or responsible. It's a tough needle to thread, wouldn't you say?

[Andrew]

No argument there regarding the difficulty navigating the hazards of expectations. It is terribly odd to see us undertaking a surge that a solid majority believe won't work, yet it goes ahead anyhow and attempts to stop it are seen as somehow unserious.

I should note, as an aside, that I have mixed feelings about regarding stopping the surge. I think it's unlikely to work, but I hate to think that I may be influenced by my impending deployment. Also a tough needle to thread, although a far less important one in the grand scheme of things.

[Nell]

Andrew, you make exactly the same distinction between politics and substance yourself in the passage I quote in my last comment.

Now I'm supposed to be embarrassed because I acknowledge that Webb had both substantive and political goals in announcing his support for the DeMint amendment? That sounds to me like exactly the opposite of assuming that my side does things only for the purest substantive reasons.

[Andrew]

Nell,

Fair enough. Objection withdrawn.

[Nell]

Thanks, Andrew; I appreciate that.

As the lone Democrat on this thread expressing any dissatisfaction or cynicism about the 100 hours legislation, it stung to be the one chuckled at for cheerleading.

[Barry]

Andrew: "

A simple rule: the politicians out of favor are always a lot more interested in ethics reform than those in power. Which is why it is to Speaker Pelosi's credit that she put ethics reform up front (although I think she would have been wiser to use a first ten days rule; the first 100 hours is a touch confusing, since it's legislative hours). I think the maverick Republicans like Jm DeMint who pushed Reid to accept a tougher bill deserve a tetch of credit as well."

Andrew, I see your post as self-contradictory. Pelosi and the Democratic Representatives deserve credit, because these rules will bind them first and foremost; I imagine that the price of a GOP Rep just went down quite a bit.

Unless DeMint was pushing (and making a fuss about) such bills during the GOP reign, then this is just window dressing.

[Anarch]

On which note, this, from Nell's first link, cracks me up:

[DeMint] is now at the forefront of the conservative effort to rein in federal spending...

Errrr... and what conservative effort would that be, exactly? The one that kicked in at about, oh, 10pm on November 7th? 'Cause it sure as hell wasn't in evidence before that...

[Jesurgislac]

Andrew: I should note, as an aside, that I have mixed feelings about regarding stopping the surge. I think it's unlikely to work, but I hate to think that I may be influenced by my impending deployment. Also a tough needle to thread, although a far less important one in the grand scheme of things.

I wanted to say: I respect and like you for feeling like that.

[xbril]

In addition, the Senate package included another step towards real transparency and accountability:

"The Senate joined the House this week by voting to make it easier for the public to track an obscure form of trade legislation that has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in tax savings to favored corporations.

Dem's shot down the Gregg amendment today. I can't believe they blew such an opportunity to have real reform. I would have truly been impressed. Instead we get fluff and business as usual.

If I were Nancy I would lay into Reid about this. Either that or a wink... not really sure what to think.

[dave palmer]

Just filed a complaint with Texas Bar Assn v US AG Alberto Gonzales, which I thought might be of interest. A copy is attached below.

Dave Palmer - Folsom, CA

David Palmer
The Watchdog
Sacramento, CA
E-Mail: [email protected]
URL: www.noethics.net

Office of Disciplinary Counsel
State Bar of Texas
La Costa Center
6300 La Calma Dr., Ste. 300
Austin, TX 78752
877-953-5535
512-453-5535
Fax: 512-453-6667

Re: Misconduct of Attorney Alberto Gonzales
State Bar Card Number: 08118550
Admitted on: 05/13/1983

Violation of: Rule 3.01 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions
Rule 8.04 – Misconduct

To Whom It May Concern:

The following complaint relates to the violations of the above referenced Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by Mr. Gonzales in his capacity as U.S. Attorney General, which are set forth below.

Rule 3.01 states: “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous.”

While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 17, 2007, Alberto laughingly claimed that the U. S. Constitution does not grant or assure citizens of the right of habeas. Alberto knew or should have known that such an assertion was untrue. In fact, in making such an erroneous statement, Alberto was putting forth what he knew or should have known was a frivolous argument and in doing so he knowingly acted in bad faith.

Senator Arlen Spector’s comment to Alberto that “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense,” further demonstrates the frivolity of Alberto’s specious comment. Moreover, a legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty.

Alberto’s frivolous conduct regarding his comments about habeas also violates Rule 8.04 in that he misrepresented the truth and in doing so attempted to deceive members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Rule 8.04 states: “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

During Alberto’s Jan. 2005 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he gave testimony that he knew was false and/or misleading when he said, “it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.” This false/misleading testimony related to President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program, which was instituted while Alberto acted as White House counsel.

At the time he testified, Alberto knew for a fact that warrantless domestic spying was taking place because he was intimately involved in advising the President that such conduct did not violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

In taking hubris to new heights, Alberto laughingly asserted that his response wasn’t false or misleading because he claimed he was responding to a hypothetical question put to him by Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Alberto subsequently testified, “I told the truth then. I’m telling the truth now. You asked me about a hypothetical situation of the president of the United States authorizing electronic surveillance in violation of our criminal statutes. That has not occurred.”

Alberto’s testimony “That has not occurred” is patently false and he knew it to be false when he so testified. Alberto’s defense is frivolous to the nth degree because when Sen. Feingold questioned him, Alberto absolutely knew that the question wasn’t hypothetical in nature because of his inherent knowledge that the warrantless domestic spying had been ongoing for several years prior to his testimony in Jan. 2005.

Recently, Alberto denied charges that politics played any part in the recent firing of several U. S. Attorneys; however, this denial is yet another attempt by Alberto to engage in deceit and/or misrepresentation of the truth. The record that is now unfolding clearly demonstrates that Alberto knew his denials were untrue; however, despite said knowledge he chose to violate the Code of Conduct.

It is indeed disheartening and disappointing to discover that the person in charge of our justice system is so willing to play fast and loose with the truth. Even though it is a given that Alberto sits at the pleasure of the President, his allegiance must be to uphold the laws of the United States. Unfortunately, Alberto has chosen not to conduct himself in accordance with the oath he took as an attorney in Texas and more importantly the oath he took as United States Attorney General.

Please provide me with a copy of Alberto’s response to this grievance.

Thanks for your time and attention to this serious matter.

Respectfully,

__________________________
David Palmer
1701 Creekside Dr., Apt. 7801
Folsom, CA 95630