It's a form letter statement against how the Democrats handled the First 100 Hours agenda. It's the same thing we have already heard, and will probably continue to hear. Smith doesn't like that the Democrats pushed through their agenda without "committee hearings...expert witnesses...and motions to amend." He doesn't say what his amendments would have been. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that the First 100 Hours agenda consisted of legislation that had hearing after hearing in previous years. What more did they need to know? As it was, the CBO had their reports attached to all the bills, spelled out in cold, non-partisan, analytical detail. He voted with the minority to stall or stop the bills, essentially. That's what he means when he says "I voted to transfer the proposals to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction for closer examination."
He then references "a recent column from the North Platte Telegraph" that was enclosed:
I was surprised to see what looks like an op-ed piece supposedly written by Adrian Smith. Even more surprised this was the first time I had ever seen this. I doubled checked the NPT website: nothing. I did specific phrase searches in every combination imaginable: nothing was found where this had ever been published anywhere in Nebraska or anywhere else. I finally called the NPT and asked if they knew anything about this. Even faxed over the letter and the article to them. I asked if there was a chance it had been in their print edition and just not on the web site. No one had seen it before. They were going to double check with the editor and get back with me. If they find it was printed, I'll be sure to post a retraction, but at this point, I'm thinking that it never was. If that's the case, it's rather interesting that the Smith staff would say it was, and even use the NPT logo on their copy (which you can copy from any "print version" screen of any article).
Smith says "relying on partisan support doesn't produce strong legislation, just strong division." Unfortunately, the Republicans force many things through over the last few years with little debate or change because they were in the majority. The difference I see is that the Democrats put forth bills on issues ranked as highly important by the American people, and which had been bogged down in committees over the last several years. They used the Republican tactic to get through an agenda the majority of the people supported. If anything, it was partisanship that stopped the Republicans, Smith among them, from supporting these issues.
Smith says that when it came to the Rules of the House,
- provisions were included to allow bills to forgo the normal committee process, skirting around the best tool legislators and our constituents have to debate and thoroughly discuss matters. To say the least, it is a disservice to skip that process.
H.Res.6 contained no such language. He's trying to make it sound like committees essentially became useless. This is false. When you go back an read previous resolutions passed establishing the House Rules (109th, 108th, 107th, 106th, to name a few), all of them contain changes in how to handle committee reports, procedures, etc. There are changes made all the time. This is Smith being disingenuous once again.
Smith then says this about the "Pay-Go" legislation:
Under the rules adopted last week though, existing entitlement programs are exempt from these cuts.
Completely false. At no time does it say that entitlement programs are exempt. The only thing that could be applied to this is in Title 4, Sec. 405, where it talks about: "baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985."
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is also know as Public Law 99-177. Section 257 specifically address the "baseline". These are the mandatory expenditures that can be expected in any given year. This was a law signed by President Ronald Reagan. This law does not say entitlements can't be considered or adjusted, but given the facts at the beginning of the budget negotiations, a "baseline" is needed. Or is Adrian Smith, in his desire to be against everything accidentally speaking against the very idol he so often invokes in his statements?
Smith brings up the minimum wage increase. He uses the usual "negative impact" line see the "First 100 Hours" and the reports I referenced on this issue). But then he makes the following claim:
I am proud to have supported an alternative measure, which included the minimum wage and protects small businesses.
When a Congressman says that, one must automatically think of another bill. But Smith has not cosponsered any bills pertaining to the minimum wage or small business tax cuts. I looked at All Congressional Actions for H.R.2. A Mr. McKeon attempted to add in several extensive provisions involving Association Health Plans, and small business tax incentives (start page 298 through 305). Essentially, he tried to submit an entire new bill under the bill before the House pertaining only to the minimum wage. The motion was found not to be germane. In ruling, the Speaker Pro Tempore stated:
Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment. Among the central tenets of the germaneness rule are that an amendment may not introduce a new subject matter and that an amendment may not introduce matter within the jurisdiction of committees not represented in the pending measure.
H.R. 2 was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and its provisions are confined to the jurisdiction of that committee. The bill addresses the rate of the minimum wage. It also applies certain wage provisions to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The instructions contained in the motion to recommit include, among other provisions, an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding certain Federal tax provisions.
In the opinion of the Chair, that feature of the motion to recommit is neither properly related to the subject matter of the bill nor within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.
Accordingly, the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not germane. The point of order is sustained, and the motion is not in order.
Smith voted to Appeal the Ruling, which was defeated 232-197. And when Mr. McKeon made a motion to recommit to with instructions to the committee on Education and Labor, Smith voted for the motion, which failed 144-287 (54 Republicans joined the Democrats on this). If that's Smith's idea of "support[ing] an alternative measure", it's flimsy. He pushed a button.
The only other thing he comments on is the stem cell research bill, which he calls "morally controversial".
Smith's letter did very little to address the questions I sent to him:
- He responded to the question about "Pay-Go" but the response is disingenuous.
- He failed to respond to his votes against a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel within the Appropriations Committee.
- He failed to respond to why he voted against implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations.
- He failed to respond on questions related to the stem cell bill. Specifically, if he is against other practices used for decades that also destroy embryos.
- He failed to say one word about the Medicare prescription negotiation bill.
- He failed to say one word about his voted against lowering college loan interest rates.
- He failed to address his vote against renewable energy and the fact he took the Club for Growth's position on the bill.
- He failed to give a response to the ICE raids at the Swift plant. Not one word.
- He failed to provide any details on things he personally did to see to the victims of the ice storms.
- He failed to provide any information on his contacts and appointments. Don't we have a right to know who he's giving his time to (lobbyists, PAC's, etc)?
- He failed to provide full details on his staff. There have been some press releases, but none really giving the details requested.
- He failed to provide any information on when he's been back in the district.
This first letter was a prime example of what we can continue to expect from Adrian Smith.
----------------------------------------
And this leads into a further detailing of last Friday's interview with him.
When I interviewed Smith at his Grand Island office, and after I identified myself, he became visibly uncomfortable. You can hear on the recording he tries to avoid answering the questions, and then tries to rush things along. He cut me off at the very end, literally turning his back on me.
I wish I had kept my recorder going because I heard him respond to a question from someone asking him what it was like to be in Congress now. He said it was "hard work", that he was exhausted, and didn't realize how much it would entail. He said that he really didn't get much of a chance for a break, but, he said "I signed up for this." I was stunned. He's been working the job for less than 2 months now, and he's already making it sound like it's overwhelming for him.
When he then stood out in the hall for the formal ribbon cutting, and made his statements, one of his aids then said to the people gathered (mainly business people), to tell Smith about what things they, as business people, want him to know about, but "let's not put him on the spot". As I said on the Nebraska Democrats blog the other day, Smith is our representative, and it's our duty to put him on the spot if he's doing or saying things that we feel aren't best representing our district. But then, we've seen President Bush in the last few years only allowed to be in front of hand picked, friendly crowds. I get the feeling Smith feels the same should apply to him.
Anyway, as I look back at the interview, several more things have really come to my attention. I saw myself finding all the hypocrisy in his statements.
He says that those that speak against his position and that of the President "don't want success in Iraq" for political reasons. Yet, he then claims he doesn't attack those with whom he disagrees. That statement is the very definition of an attack.
He says that speaking against the President's plan emboldens the enemy and hurts troop morale. Yet he denies that he is saying people shouldn't speak their minds. He says he agrees with debate and with General Pace's position that these discussions strengthen our democracy....but then he goes back to the previous lines.
He says he's listening to the Generals on the ground and to their requests. He says he trust them as the experts on the matter. Yet, when he interrupts the questions and says that General Pace stated that the discussions don't hurt troop moral, he admits, without realizing, that he isn't listening to the military experts in this matter. Why?
Because it wouldn't fit into his political agenda and into the talking points he has dedicated himself to repeating over and over again.
Adrian Smith admitted he felt that Senator Chuck Hagel does not want success in Iraq. He thinks we should listen to his him instead, take his advice and his position on this matter. I know some have had issues with how Hagel has handled all this, but let's just look at the big picture in this case.
Chuck Hagel is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, he's been a Senator for 10 years now, he's on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, and he was formally the Deputy Administrator for the Veterans Administration. Then there's Adrian Smith. No extensive access to intelligence information, and the only thing close to military experience that he's had is helping to get some money to build a commons area for the VA in western Nebraska.
What it all comes down to is who do you think has more credibility in this matter?
