Some Things to Ponder

I was surprised about something I learned this week. The Scottsbluff Star-Herald, Adrian Smith's hometown newspaper that had been acting as his Nebraska soap box, actually criticized him and cast him in not so good of a light this week.

An opinion piece was published on March 26, 2007:



Let's highlight the key paragraph:

It's more important than ever for western Nebraska to get the Heartland Expressway completed, so we can enjoy the trade and tourism that a major north-south transportation corridor would bring.

But Gov. Dave Heineman, who promised to support it, has been conspicuously silent since the election.......

....Rep. Adrian Smith, who also promised to support it, has asked for no transportation (or agriculture) earmarks in the next federal budget. Spending transportation dollars here isn't a priority for their party or the supporters who bankrolled their campaigns.

Looks like they may be starting to see the daylight also!

-------------------------------------------

Once again, Adrian Smith send out a press release that's just parroting much of the same rhetoric put out on March 22 and March 23.

His latest regurgitation, "Smith Opposes Bloated Budget", puts out yet another extremely misleading Smithian factoid. In it he states:

Smith pointed out that repealing the tax relief would mean 225,000 married couples in Nebraska would face higher taxes because of an increase in the marriage penalty and 172,000 families with children would pay more taxes because the Child Tax Credit would expire. He also pointed out the average Nebraska taxpayer would see a tax increase of more than $2,800 a year.

Three things:

1) The "Marriage Penalty". In 2006, single filers, got a deduction of $8,450 and married filing jointly got a deduction of $16,900. A true double. The deduction in 2000 for married filing jointly was 10% less than a true double. While I myself benefit from this deduction, the fact remains that between my husband and I, we pay less in expenses due to the fact we have one set of bills between us instead of two, whereas single people have to pay everything on their own. So, if a single person has $1500 in bills each month and has a take home salary of $3000 each month, they pay half their income in bills. If, however, you're married, you may have about $2000 in expenses, but have a possible take home salary of $6000 each month for you and your spouse. That means only 33% of your income goes to pay the bills.

2) The Child Tax Credit WILL NOT EXPIRE. The deduction, however, COULD go back down to the 2000 levels. There would still be a deduction. The Democrats have set aside revenue to cover this, and to ensure it's survival, maybe Adrian Smith needs to get in there and figure out how to pay for it. But to say it EXPIRES is an out and out LIE by Smith to his constituents.

3) The Average increase, he claims, would be $2,800. But that number is extremely misleading. How? Well, by taking an average of ALL taxpayers, the very wealthy pull those rates up considerably. But here's a REAL fact, as learned at the IRS Tax Stats site.

From 2000 to 2004 (the years that state data is available), about 70% to 75% of Nebraska taxpayers earned $50,000 a year or less. Of those taxpayers, the average taxes paid per taxpayer in 2000 was $2,489. In 2004, the average taxes paid per taxpayer was $1,779. Not taking the time to try and figure inflation, but simply subtracting, the average increase for nearly 75% of Nebraska's taxpayers would be $710. That's a far cry from the $2,800 that Smith tried to pass off.


No one wants to see taxes go back up. I sure don't. But the fact is that the Bush Administration has been spending like a teenager with a new credit card, and a whole mall to tackle. That bill is now growing, and before we really lose control, that spending and that debt must be brought under control. It's better to start doing that now, than to wait and pass it off to our children and grandchildren. All because we don't want to sacrifice for all our gluttony.

----------------------------------

Finally, I want to recap the Mass Mailing that Smith sent out. There was speculation on the photo in that mailing. I did an extensive search and found a photo of Smith taken in the early summer of 2006 during a youth ag seminar:




You can judge for yourself. But both he's wearing the khakis, the blue shirt, the dark belt and, what looks like a blackberry on his right side on the belt. But it's just speculation. As FOX Fake News would say: We report, you decide.

March 22 & 23 Floor Statements

Adrian Smith got up and did a lot of talking last week over a two-day period. Not a whole lot was actually said, unfortunately. Both days appeared to be what I call “The King & Smith Show”. It appeared Steve King of Iowa (another of the far-right Republicans) and Adrian Smith worked out this dialogue before getting up and using their hour of talk each day. I will not post the entirety of the statements. I will provide links for those that want to read it all. I will, however, focus on a few things that caught my attention.

MARCH 22, 2007

Here is my first example of why I call this “The King & Smith Show”:

Mr. KING: But I also recognize that the gentleman who represents the vast majority of the State of Nebraska and some of those spaces out there are, indeed, vast, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your arrival in this Congress, the values that you bring here, and the principled stand that you take. Often there are many things that tie western Iowa to all of Nebraska, and particularly western Nebraska. I appreciate you being here on the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa. It's great to be here. I take this responsibility, not only this evening, very seriously, but being elected as a Member of the United States House of Representatives very seriously.

My primary responsibility, I believe, is to protect the freedoms that so many Americans enjoy and, perhaps, have taken for granted for a time. I think back to the terrorist acts leveled on our country, and that is a constant reminder that we cannot sit idly by, that we cannot let division sway us from our goal. I believe that one of the fundamental sources of our freedom is through economic freedom, and that is why I requested a spot on the Budget Committee.

My grandma would have said their preening and crowing like a couple of Roosters. Now, to be fair, this is what they all do. Politicians like to get up and hear themselves talk. Even when they’re basically slamming and insulting the person that just spoke, they do it talking about the “gentleman from…” or “my friends across the isle.”

Incidentally, last night, we had a long markup of the budget. It was very enlightening to me as a new Member, and it was very enlightening to me, I think, some of the rhetoric and the objectives of a budget.

But it is interesting how the allegations are leveled that the Bush administration tax relief or the Reagan tax relief or, quite honestly, the President John F. Kennedy tax relief had nothing to do with a rebounding economy subsequently.

It was very enlightening to me, in fact, when I was visiting the JFK Library in Boston, or outside of Boston. This is not the Ronald Reagan Library; this is not the Bush 41 or the Bush 43 library. This is the John F. Kennedy Library that has an entire exhibit devoted to the economic policies of tax relief leading to economic prosperity.

So Adrian invokes JFK. He’s not the first to do it. He’s also not the first to get that JFK’s tax cuts, and the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, had big differences.

This article in Slate from 2004, “Tax Cuts in Camelot?”, explains:

Since the drive to pass Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s, Republicans have often invoked John F. Kennedy as the patron saint of supply-side economics. For several years now, conservative groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Club for Growth—the supply-side group whose name sounds like a hair-replacement outfit—have used JFK's name and words to depict Republican tax cuts skewed toward the rich as part of a grand bipartisan tradition.

Now the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore is enlisting JFK to take a swipe at Howard Dean's economic vision in the Wall Street Journal, declaring it anti-growth, burdensome to the middle-class, and in an oh-so-painful concluding slap, final proof that the Democrats "no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago."

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars.

You can read the rest at the link above.

The next thing Smith said that caught my eye:

But as we were marking up the budget last night in committee well into the night, it was interesting how we heard that the majority wants to maintain the tax relief relating to the marriage penalty, tax relief relating to the child tax credit, but yet the budget doesn't show that. The budget does not show that.

I previously pointed out this is very misleading. They are setting aside revenue to cover these particular cuts, but to truly maintain them when they are to expire, the money has to be found to cover that loss in revenue. It’s all part of the Paygo principles. If the money cannot be found in the next 2-3 years, then the rates go back to the Clinton era rates.

It is interesting that there were amendments proposed for the budget resolution last night that would have solidified the tax relief one measure at a time. So there was the option of cherry-picking, if you will, good parts, bad parts, whatever the case might have been for others wanting to support these amendments.

Smith is referring to a series of amendments that several Republicans teamed together on, himself included, and tried to insert into the budget. The problem? They had no Paygo offsets. Once again, they were told they had to find the money. They didn’t provide any proposals for offsetting the loss in revenue.

Here’s another exchange on the King & Smith Show:

Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield, and just inquire as you were working through that budget last night, what kind of message did you get from the majority party on how much support there was for the Department of Defense budget and how much support for military spending? We are having this debate here on the floor today and starting again tomorrow morning. Did you sense that there was a commitment to support our military financially, our troops, and their mission?

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I did not sense that commitment. It would be hard for me to speak or to speculate. And I am not here to beat up on those with whom I disagree. That is not my job. I do believe, though, that this supplemental spending bill, and I don't want to take up all of your time, but I do want to touch briefly on the fact that this supplemental spending bill with the caveats that many would call micromanaging the war is the wrong thing to do. I don't think we want to give our enemy any hint of what our plans are. A date certain withdrawal is the wrong thing to do. Certainly that was not discussed, especially in the spending context that we have heard so much here today about and well into the future.

Let me get this straight: King basically asks Smith if he felt the members in the hearing were committed to our troops. Smith says he sensed no commitment, but “I’m not here to beat up on those with whom I disagree.”

We had this situation with him before. He takes the position that those that disagree with him on the military matters don’t support the troops - a complete insult - then says, “I don’t attack those with whom I disagree.”

Like I said before, that is an attack. To attack one’s commitment to the troops and to this country and deny that’s what is being done, is disingenuous and unbecoming of a Representative of the State of Nebraska.


MARCH 23, 2007

Smith was named as the designee of the minority leader for 60 minutes on the floor, something that every member does at some point. Smith used that hour to produce the second episode of the King & Smith Show, this time focusing on Agriculture.

Most is just a long checklist of statistics about agriculture, but nothing that shows any leadership as far as he is concerned regarding ag issues. It’s a lot of hot air, no substance. He offers no groundbreaking proposals, just a lot of posturing.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's agricultural producers. U.S. agriculture is innovative, adaptive and certainly responsive. I am here today to celebrate National Ag Week which ends tomorrow, as well as celebrate National Ag Day, which we celebrated on Wednesday.
It goes without saying that agriculture is tremendously important to my district and the Nation as a whole. I hope you join me in celebrating everyone who works so hard to provide nutrition for the world.

I represent one of the largest agriculture districts in the country. My district ranks first in the value of sales of grains and oil seeds, second in total value of agricultural products sold, and first in cattle and calf inventory. According to the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, my State ranks first in the Nation in commercial red meat production as well…………

That’s how it continues throughout the rest of the monologue. But, again, there are a few things to point out:

As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I am also putting a priority on expanding modern technology in our district to support new and existing businesses, attract new employers and make our rural communities more competitive in the modern economy.

I addressed this claim before. I have yet to see anything he had done in that committee - no sponsorship or cosponsorship of bills - that support this claim.

The efficiency of the American farmer pays off in the price American consumers pay for food as well. The United States consumers spend roughly 9 percent of their income on food, compared with 11 percent in the United Kingdom, 17 percent in Japan, 27 percent in South Africa, and 53 percent in India. That is a pretty good deal.

This great value is due in large part to improved equipment efficiency, enhanced crop and livestock genetics through biotechnology and conventional breeding, and advances in information management.

At the 2007 Farm Bill Forum presented by the University of Nebraska and Kansas State University, I received a handout. In it, the following was in a report titled "Historical Rationale for Farm Programs" by Troy Dumler, Extension Agricultural Economist, K-State Research and Extension:







Another example of the King & Smith Show:

Mr. SMITH: Hopefully we can learn from our past, the policies that, perhaps, discourage trade or policies that come down in a Draconian manner on farmers and ranchers. I will get to more of that in a few minutes. Meanwhile, I would like to yield to my friend from Iowa, as he would like to discuss American agriculture as well.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for bringing the highlight on agriculture here, because this is Agriculture Week. I am confident there have been some Agriculture Weeks go by here in this Congress without mention of such an important event. This is a tremendous production system that we have in the United States, with outstanding and impressive people that commit their lives to feeding the world. And we need to honor them today on Ag Week here on the floor of Congress. And I certainly appreciate and respect the gentleman from Nebraska for raising this issue and being here tonight and for the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I appreciate the fact that you speak to the future. As we look at so many of the aspects of agriculture, I think sometimes we forget about the future and how far we have come.

This next part, I actually saw Smith talking about live on CSPAN:

I was reading through, and I noticed part of the essay contest winner from the Ag Council of America, and this is the 2007 winner, LaTasha Cote, a 12th grader from Myrtle, Missouri Couch High School. And students from 7th to 12th grade submitted original essays of 450 words about the importance of agriculture in the United States. Under the theme, ``American Agriculture in 2025,'' students were encouraged to focus their essays on the potential landscape of American agriculture in 2025 based on where we are today and the opportunities that lie ahead. And Ms. Cote read her essay to industry representatives, Members of Congress, Federal agency representatives, media and others in a celebration of agriculture; and let me share with you just an excerpt:

Smith reads about 3 paragraphs, then says:

And I haven't had a chance to read the entire piece, but I wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Cote and every student who submitted an essay in the contest.

He hadn’t had a chance to read a 450 word essay? How long does it take for him to read something that short? Here is the full essay:

American Agriculture in 2025
by LaTasha Cote

The alarm sounds off at about 8:00; a young man reaches over to turn it off. He gets up, jumps in the shower, eats his breakfast, and then heads out the door toward his milk barn. There is no rush to get to the cows because they have already been milked. He begins to check the computer system to see the amount of milk produced from the third milking of the day. Immediately, a very precise chart pops up and gives the percentage of milk given per second, the amount of butterfat, and accurately tells the farmer the exact weight of the milk. Wait, where’s the reality check? Well, there isn’t one. This is only one example of how far the industry, in all farms, has come since the year of two-thousand and seven.

It is the year 2025 and the local farm is still alive and well, only there have been some changes made on how farms are run and the amount of stress on the farmer has been minimized greatly. Since the past, the agriculture industry has made huge medical and environmental changes. Starting with the fact that the industry has found the answer to preventing what used to be a fatal disease, mad cow, but not anymore. Agriculture has also found ways to transfer pig organs to humans; oddly the process that used to be so complex, now it isn’t much of a process at all.

Agriculture has also found the answer to the high cost of fuel and feed. It used to be a problem that the everyday person worried constantly about; now it is merely a thing of the past. Since recent studies on ethanol production and the availability to produce it come from corn stalks instead of the ear of corn has helped tremendously in feed production and costs. Although we have come such a long way since 2007, we still face problems everyday. It has been said that we are running out of room to farm, even since the confinement of beef cattle, goats, and horses.

Though scientists have said that they are getting closer to remedying ways to grow life on the moon, the population crisis is still overwhelming.

I have high hopes on the future of agriculture. It is only the year 2025 and we are well on our way to finding faster and easier ways to farm and statistics say that the number of agriculture majors is at a steady increase. Knowing that our future is in the hands of our youth, I am confident that we will continue to grow as an industry and a nation at large.

That only takes about a minute to read. And Smith failed to do something else while talking about this essay contest. He forgot to congratulate the Nebraska State Essay Winner: Warner Lee Phipps.

But as we talk about the future and younger generations engaging in agriculture, I find it unconscionable that the so-called death tax, or, in a more technical sense, the estate tax, would go back up to 55 percent, and that a subsequent generation on a farm or ranch would have to come up with cash to inherit that farm or ranch. That is sad. That is un-American. I think it is insensitive to taxpayers, and I think it has an immense disregard for the future and economic impact that that would have.

You can refer to my previous comments on Smith’s “death tax” statements.

Basically, Smith spoke about 6000 words. I highlighted a few of those. Nothing new to report or any ideas to present, just a lot of rhetoric and posturing.


MARCH 23, 2007 EXTENTIONS OF REMARKS:

Smith also had this added to the record:

SPEECH OF
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, today is National Agriculture Day. National Agriculture Day occurs every year on the first day of Spring. This is a week when we honor agriculture for providing safe, abundant and affordable products, a strong economy, a source of renewable energy, and a world of job opportunities.

It goes without saying that agriculture is tremendously important to my district and the nation as a whole, and I hope you join me in celebrating everyone who works so hard to provide for the world.

The Third District of Nebraska is one of the largest agricultural districts in the country. Our district ranks first in the value of sales of grains and oilseeds, second in total value of agricultural products sold, and first in cattle and calve inventory.

Simply put: Agriculture matters. National Agriculture Week is about celebrating the impact the industry has on our State, our Nation, and our everyday lives. I'm proud to represent the Third District of Nebraska, a district that truly embodies the spirit of this celebration.

I’m looking forward to the day when Adrian Smith actually does something that has real actions behind it, rather than speaking a lot of words.

It’s not the words that you speak, Mr. Smith. It’s your actions that define you.

Adrian Smith on the Issues

Someone went to a lot of time and energy to get this video put together during the 2006 campaign. Enjoy!

House Actions 3/19/07 - 3/23/07

Pretty big week in the House again. I updated you on Smith’s reaction to the Budget Committee’s final budget proposal. Now let’s break down the rest of the weeks activity on the floor.

There were 3 bills for ceremonial purposes this week that passed unanimously with Smith present and voting for all three:

H RES 138 - Recognizing the importance of Hot Springs National Park on its 175th anniversary
H CON RES 42 - Honoring the heroic service and sacrifice of the 6,500 glider pilots of the United States Army Air Forces during World War II
H CON RES 66 - Use of Rotunda for Holocaust Days of Remembrance Ceremony

The following 9 bills also passed with little or no resistance. Adrian Smith voted for all of them:

H R 658 - Natural Resource Protection Cooperative Agreement Act
FINAL VOTE: 390-10-33
H R 839 - Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act
FINAL VOTE: 394-1-38
H R 759 - Redesignate the Ellis Island Library on Ellis Island, NY as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library”.
FINAL VOTE: 420-1-12
H R 327 - Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act
FINAL VOTE: 423-0-10
H R 797 - Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act
FINAL VOTE: 424-0-9
H R 1284 - Veterans’ Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act
FINAL VOTE: 418-0-15
H R 1130 - Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act
FINAL VOTE: 415-0-18
H R 740 - Promoting Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007
FINAL VOTE: 413-1-19
H R 545 - Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007
FINAL VOTE: 423-0-10

There was one bill that was actually bipartisan and should have had no problem getting passed:

H.R.835 - To reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

This bill would extend appropriations for housing assistance for Native Americans and loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing, as well as for credit subsidies to cover the costs of federal guarantees for financing for tribal housing activities. An examination of the floor statements further provides that this was requested by the Governor of Hawaii, a Republican, and both Republicans and Democrats supported this extension. The CBO estimated the cost at $39 Million over 5 years. In the whole scheme of things, this is a small request. This would continue to fulfill an agreement that was made when Hawaii became a state. No one stood up and spoke against this bill, only supporters stood. No one objected to suspending the rules to vote on the bill immediately.

However, when the rules are waived, a two-thirds vote is required. This bill FAILED TO PASS on a vote of 262-162-9.
FOR: 34 Republicans, 228 Democrats
AGAINST: 162 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats

Smith voted AGAINST this bill. It failed to pass because it didn’t get enough votes. It’s now stalled.

There were 3 different votes this week to approve the previous day’s journal. This is a procedural vote approving of the record of the previous day’s activities. It’s the official transcript.

The March 20 approval of the previous day’s journal passed on a vote of 265-149-2-17.
FOR: 56 Republicans, 209 Democrats
AGAINST: 135 Republicans 14 Democrats
PRESENT: 2 Republicans
NO VOTE: 8 Republicans, 9 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST the approval of the journal. He joined the usual: Blunt, Beohner, Cantor & Terry.

The March 22 approval of the previous day’s journal passed on a vote of 256-160-2-15.
FOR: 53 Republicans, 203 Democrats
AGAINST: 140 Republicans, 20 Democrats
PRESENT: 2 Republicans
NO VOTE: 6 Republicans, 9 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST the approval of the journal. Once again, so did Blunt, Beohner, Cantor & Terry.

The March 23 approval of the previous day’s journal passed on a vote of 263-146-2-22.
FOR: 57 Republicans, 206 Democrats
AGAINST: 132 Republicans, 14 Democrats
PRESENT: 2 Republicans
NO VOTE: 10 Republicans, 12 Democrats
Smith vote AGAINST the approval of the journal. And by now you should know who also voted against it.


H.RES.254 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina.

This was another of the resolutions that sets forth the rules by which a bill can be considered. Again it was a party-line vote, with Smith joining the Republicans to vote against moving forward.


H.R.1227 - To assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina.

It’s a rather complex bill to provide ongoing support to those most affected by Hurricane Katrina. There were many amendments offered most having roll call votes.

H.AMDT.52 - An amendment sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hansarling, to require recipients of rental assistance under the bill to perform 20 hours per week of approved `work activities.' Approved activities include work, preparation to find work, vocational education, community service, and providing child care services. Exemptions are provided for senior citizens, the disabled, those already exempt from TANF work requirements, and those who cannot access child care.

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 162-266-10
FOR: 158 Republicans, 4 Democrats
AGAINST: 39 Republicans, 227 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

H.AMDT.53 - An amendment sponsored by Rep. Judy Biggert, to require that, instead of replacing all pre-Katrina public housing units, only the number of public housing units occupied pre-Katrina be replaced.

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 198-232-8.
FOR: 196 Republicans, 2 Democrats
AGAINST: 2 Republicans, 230 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

H.AMDT.54 - An amendment by Rep. Al Green, to extend FEMA housing assistance for evacuees of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma until December 31, 2007 and provide tenant-based rental assistance upon termination of FEMA housing assistance.

This amendment apparently got a slight modification that was agreed to by unanimous voice consent before coming up for a vote. It PASSED 246-184-8.
FOR: 14 Republicans, 232 Democrats
AGAINST: 184 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this amendment.

HOWEVER….Rep. Price of Georgia demanded a second vote on the amendment as it was modified. It still PASSED on a vote of 242-184-7.
FOR: 13 Republicans, 229 Democrats
AGAINST: 184 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith again voted AGAINST this amendment.


The debate went into a second day. Prior to starting the debate, a motion was made to “Permit to Proceed in Order on This Day”. The motion PASSED 265-160-8.
FOR: 36 Republicans, 229 Democrats
AGAINST: 160 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST the motion to proceed.

H.AMDT.55 - An amendment sponsored by Rep. Randy Neugebauer, to strike section 306 of the bill. Section 306 authorizes funds for eligible families to continue receiving voucher assistance after the termination of the Disaster Voucher Program.

This Amendment FAILED on a vote of 185-247-6
FOR: 184 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 14 Republicans, 233 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.


H.AMDT.56 - An amendment sponsored by Rep. Tom Price, to strike section 103 of the bill. Section 103 eliminates the prohibition of use for match requirement.

This amendment FAILED on a vote of 98-333-7
FOR: 97 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 101 Republicans, 232 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment, ending up in even the minority of his own party.

A “motion to recommit with instructions” to the House Committee on Financial Services was voted on, and PASSED 249-176-1-7.
FOR: 194 Republicans, 55 Democrats
AGAINST: 1 Republican, 175 Democrats
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 2 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this motion.

An amendment was made by House Committee on Financial Services, which was approved by voice vote.

The bill then PASSED on a final vote of 302-125-6.
FOR: 72 Republicans, 230 Democrats
AGAINST: 125 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.


H.RES.260 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes.

Another resolution setting the rules for how to precede with consideration of the primary bill. On “ordering the previous question”, or what I like to call a vote to agree to vote, the motion passed on a party-line vote. Smith, of course, voted against the motion.

On the motion to agree to the resolution and proceed with the consideration of HR 1433, it passed on yet another party-line vote, and Smith again voted against the motion.

HR 1433 will probably be debated next week.


H.RES.261 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

This again sets forth the rules to consider a bill, in this case HR 1591. This resolution passed on a vote of 225-201-7.
FOR: 1 Republican, 224 Democrats
AGAINST: 196 Republicans, 5 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this resolution.


H.R.1591 - Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

This was the hotly contested bill of the week. This is the bill that included within it a timeline and requirements for the ongoing actions in Iraq. Specifically, that they should start pulling out in the fall of 2008, or sooner if the Iraqi government is not stepping up to the plate.

It also included drought relief that would affect farmers and ranchers directly in Nebraska’s Third District.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 218-212-1-3.
FOR: 2 Republicans, 216 Democrats
AGAINST: 198 Republicans, 14 Democrats
PRESENT: 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 1 Republican, 2 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

KNEB filed this report on the vote:

Smith In Minority As House Sets Timeline For Withdrawal In Iraq Funding Bill

Third District Congressman Adrian Smith of Gering was in the minority today (Friday) as the House passed an Iraq emergency supplemental funding bill that requires President Bush to pull the troops out of the Middle East by the fall of next year. Smith told reporters during a conference call that he could not vote for the bill as long as it had a timeline for withdrawal of the troops.

Smith says by supporting the Administration's policy in Iraq, it contains the battle to the Middle East and keeps the terrorists from expanding their efforts around the world, including the United States.

Smith said he would prefer to see the bill stripped to include only additional money for the war and drought relief. He says the Speaker has indicated drought relief is a priority and he is hoping the House can get an up or down vote on that issue.

There are several things to point out about his statements. First, he had to make a choice during that vote: Would he continue to support an unpopular President and unending occupation of a land in a three-way civil war, or would he suck it up and support the farmers and ranchers hurting as a result of several years of drought? He chose what the extremist of his party wanted him to chose, and put their desires ahead of the needs of the residents of the Third District. But why are we surprised?

Second, he shows an ignorance about the make-up of the insurgents in Iraq. The fact is that foreign terrorists make up a small minority in Iraq. And he’s forgetting that the terrorist have expanded around the world already: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, to name a few.

Third, the idea of putting down a timeline is one that was highly advocated by the Iraq Study Group. They also recommended that talks are necessary, as well as laying out expectations for the Iraqi government to step up to the plate. In the past, he’s parroted the idea that it “emboldens the enemy” and that they will just wait things out. Well, the surge can have the same affect. In past surges, they saw some of the hot spots clear out, only to see the insurgents had gone elsewhere, or had regrouped and gone back in after the military left. Military experts with the Pentagon have pointed out that we cannot sustain this level of occupation. Our troops are already stretched thin. They are running out of troops that are prepared for this type of urban warfare.

Stepping up and finally putting down a timeline is something that does support the troops. That, and the requirements for readiness included in the bill. If the equipement and training isn’t there, the worst thing that can be done is to send troops that aren’t ready, something that has been happening for some time now.

Finally, the "up or down vote" line, a parroting of what we heard under the previous Congress. The problem is that this bill has been voted for in an "up or down vote" now. The Senate has to consider it and their own version now. If they pass something similar, he will be faced a second time with voting on final passage of this bill.

So, while the Democrats used a common tactic to win votes on an issue they wanted to see passed, Smith had a choice: Support his district and put the needs of his district first, or support his party. He chose his party.

----------------------------------------------------

Adrian Smith did do quite a bit of talking on the House Floor this week. The majority was rather hollow, but some of what he said needs further discussing. So, instead of making this weeks update so long, I will do it in a separate posting, to be done in the next couple days.

----------------------------------------------------

Adrian Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week, leaving his grand total at 2 so far.

He did add his name to 2 more bills as a cosponsor this week, bringing his total to 25 bills.

H.CON.RES.25 - Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.

This bill was first introduced back on January 10, 2007, and it actually as discussed before the Agriculture Committee back on February 6, 2007. Smith just now added his name on March 23, 2007.


H.R.1399 - To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.

This is a way to try and deflate many of the gun control laws for the entire country. For example, it redefines “semi-automatic”, and eliminates penalties for possessing unregistered guns. This is a tip to the NRA.

With these two bills added to his total, Smith is number 47 out of 53 Freshman Representatives. Only 6 others are sponsoring & cosponsoring less bills than he is.


As each week goes by, Smith's pattern is clearly starting to emerge. Over and over again, he puts party before the people. Over and over again, he takes the position of voting against almost everything the Democrats support. Almost every time, unless there is a clear bipartisan issue, Smith is on the losing side of a vote. Almost every single time, he votes with Blunt, Boehner and Cantor, even if it's in the minority of their own party. It's clear that business always comes first, people in need come last.

Will Mr. Smith ever wake up?

Smith’s Reaction to the House Budget Proposal

Adrian Smith is joining his party and the Club for Growth in loudly decrying the budget proposal that made it out of the Budget Committee this week. He’s so incensed, he put out 2 different press releases.

The first release was on March 22. Let’s break this down:

Smith Reacts to House Budget Proposal

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE), a member of the House Budget Committee, today criticized the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget, a budget that includes the largest tax increase in our nation's history - $392.5 billion - while doing nothing to reform entitlement spending for at least five years. The budget also proposes a spending increase of $22.5 billion in non-defense, non-emergency annual appropriations for fiscal year 2008.

If you go to the minority Budget Committee sight, you’ll find this is their position, practically word for word. But it’s misleading. What Republicans (and the Club for Growth) are calling it is the “largest tax increase in history”.

Not quite, but I’ll get to that next.

…… a tax increase of $392.5 billion over five years that will hit middle-income families, low-income earners, small businesses, and family farms.

Smith pointed out that repealing the tax relief would mean 225,000 married couples in Nebraska would face higher taxes because of an increase in the marriage penalty and 172,000 families with children would pay more taxes because the Child Tax Credit would expire.

Again, Smith highly misleads and isn‘t fully truthful. When you read the Overview of the Chairman’s Remarks, you find it states: “Accommodates relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax for millions of middle-income taxpayers, as well as extension of middle-income tax cuts”.

When you look at the text of the legislation, it states (Sec. 203 starting bottom of page 29 & Sec. 401 starting page 46):

provides for tax relief for middle-income families and taxpayers and enhanced economic equity, such as extension of the child tax credit, extension of marriage penalty relief, extension of the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, modification of the Alternative Minimum Tax, elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing the unified credit

He also fails to explain that the Democrats plan puts a long term fix on the Alternative Minimum Tax. Bush’s plan only put on a one-year patch and did nothing to make real changes.

Here’s the only catch. They are setting aside a reserve for these cuts to be permanent, but if future spending cuts cannot be found by the time these expire in 2010, there is a chance these would expire. But this expiration would not be a “tax increase”. Rather, these tax levels would return to what they were prior to passage in 2001 - the Clinton Era tax levels.

The fact is that in 1942, Roosevelt raised taxes, which increased revenue by 71%. The tax increase was 4.6% of GDP. Those tax rates were higher than the Clinton-era tax rates, by far. So even if they all expired, people would still be paying a lot less in taxes than then did in the 1940’s.

"I'm more than disappointed. The budget released today flies in the face of the belief that we can balance the budget without raising taxes. This budget doesn't help people, it taxes them," Smith said.

Smith fails to explain that if Bush’s ideas were enacted, over 1 million more children would lose out on medical insurance coverage and our past, and newly returning, war veterans would receive a decrease in funding for their ongoing needs.

And here is a fact we cannot deny any longer. This government has been spending like there’s no tomorrow for over 6 years now. The debt has increased 61% since Bush took office in 2001. This is the first President in our history that has sent our soldiers to war and NOT asked the public to sacrifice. There has never been a tax decrease during war time. Now, that wild spending has to be brought under control, and it has to be done sooner rather than later, or our children and grandchildren will be the ones suffering for our excesses.

In addition, the budget suggests cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA), an innovative healthcare program that provides flexible coverage for disproportionately minority and rural beneficiaries. Surveys released earlier this week indicate 90 percent of seniors who use MA are satisfied with the program, and 75 percent of doctors who treat Medicare beneficiaries said cutting MA would hurt seniors.

An Analysis of the Medicare Advantage was done by the Congressional Budget office, and found this program costs 18% more per senior. It’s a program offered by private insurance companies, but results in a greater cost to tax payers. It would be a continuing hand out to the insurance industry, when other options can be found.

So this is an example of Adrian not being fiscally conservative, but rather, keeping campaign contributors happy.

Insurance and other medical related PACs that donated to Smith: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska, AFLAC, Allstate, American Dental PAC, American Health Care Associates, American Optometric Association, Caremark RX, Independent Insurance Agents of America, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers, and Pfizer.


Smith next wrote an essay, titled “A Balanced Budget without Raising Taxes by Congressman Adrian Smith”.

Just seeing the title, one thinks that Adrian Smith has a plan. The title is misleading. At no point does he offer a plan. He presents a lot of very misleading information that he feels supports his philosophy, but once again he shows no substance to this thoughts. Once again, he’s posturing and being completely disingenuous. Just read his first paragraph:

Ensuring fiscal responsibility is one of my main goals as your Representative in Congress. By serving on the House Budget Committee, I have the chance to bring Nebraska values, like fiscal restraint, to the federal budget process.

He then makes sure to note that “killing the death tax” is one of the most important issues. He further explains:

Prior to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, a family wishing to pass along a family farm or small business to the next generation faced federal estate taxes of up to 55 percent. Thanks to the 2001 tax cut, the estate tax will be completely eliminated by 2010.

It’s not a death tax. It’s an inheritance tax, officially called the Estate Tax. And right now, the first $2 Million inherited (AFTER deducting funeral expenses, legal expenses, debts, etc), is deducted from calculating the taxes. So if someone inherits $2.1 Million today, they pay a 46% tax on $100,000. That’s nearly 2.2% in taxes.

The estate tax would not be “completely eliminated” it would go back to a rate of 55% after the first $1 Million.

Some adjustments may be necessary and healthy, but what Smith wants may actually hurt Nebraska farmers and small businesses. These are just a few of the articles I found pertaining to the matter, one’s Smith should read:

- Estate Tax Myths
- An Estate Tax Twist
- Effects of the Federal Estate Tax on Farms and Small Businesses
- Do Farmers Really Want to Eliminate the Estate Tax?
- Few Wealthy Farmers Owe Estate Taxes, Report Says
- National Farmers Union Tax Policy
- Bill Gates Sr. Brings Estate Tax Crusade To Farmers Union

Smith continues with his essay:

The only way to hold back government spending is to balance the federal budget. The only way to responsibly balance the budget is to do so without raising taxes.

No, Adrian Smith. The only responsible way to work toward a balanced budget is to cut spending AND increase revenue somehow. In this case, the tax cuts would end and the higher income wage earners (usually the top 10%) would have their rates return to Clinton era rates. Those rates are some of the lowest rates in our history.

Let's take a look at the benefits the tax relief of 2001 and 2003 have provided our economy. Pre-tax relief, our nation had lost 2.7 million jobs; since tax relief, we've added 7.4 million jobs. Pre-tax relief, our GDP grew at a paltry rate of 1.1 percent; in the 15 quarters since, average GDP growth has been 3.6 percent. In addition, unemployment has fallen from 6.1 percent in 2002 to 4.5 percent today.

Smoke and mirrors. He takes numbers and makes them appear better than they really are. But those tax cuts may not have been near as good as he’d like to think. In this article, President Bush's Tax Cut Suicide, the conclusion is that things wouldn’t be as bad as Smith wants us to believe.

Thanks to tax cuts like killing the death tax, our economy is now strong.

The wording is just sad. “Killing” and “death”, to present an image of gloom and doom. But the “Estate Tax” was not “eliminated“, Adrian. It's still there.


You can read the entire article he wrote, but he gives absolutely no plan and no suggestion for change. If this is what we can expect from Adrian Smith for another 21 months, God help us.

I leave you with this article, Show us the money, and present the highlights that I think do better than I ever could to put this budget into perspective:

The part of all this that is sure to get the most attention is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Though it's fair to say conservatives never intended for the sun to set, to sell the cuts they had to build in their demise by the end of the decade. Now they go around saying that allowing the cuts to expire would amount to a massive tax increase.

But since it would take new legislation to extend the cuts, Democrats legitimately make the case that to do so would be to enact yet another round of tax cuts.

…….the tax-cut zombies have a new, big problem.

For years, they have been able to ignore the fiscal implications of their massive tax cuts. They could wave hands and argue that the cuts would pay for themselves through the magic elixir of supply-side economics (even when their own agencies were submitting reports saying that wouldn't happen). Or they could simply ignore the fact that both current (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and looming (healthcare) expenses were going to lead to large and damaging deficits.

In other words, as long as the grown-ups are away, you can have all the guns and butter you want. Well, paygo means the grown-ups are back in the room.

Bush and the Republican minority are starting to get really fired up about all this and are accusing the Democrats of massive tax increases. But paygo is likely to resonate among the electorate, which does not seem to be in quite the tax-revolt mood of past years. In other words, if Bush and the Republicans want to extend the cuts, they are going to need to find the money.

First Committee Transcripts Available

The first full transcripts have posted on the Government Printing Office website.

Three transcripts, all for the Budget Committee, have been published and show that Adrian Smith continues to live up to the Omaha World Herald's assessment of him during the campaign: "Smith is not known as a skilled lawmaker."

The first transcript is for the hearing on January 23, 2007, "Why Deficits Matter". Testimony was taken from such notables as David M. Walker (Comptroller General of the United States, Government Accountability Office), Dr. Edward M. Gramlich (Richard B. Fisher Senior Fellow, Urban Institute) and Dr. Edwin M. Truman (Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics). Basically men that are way smarter than Adrian Smith is, given that economics have been their life's work. The hearing lasted 2 hours, 24 minutes.

The transcript lists Smith as present for the meeting. Then, toward the latter part of the hearing, Smith's name comes up:

Mr. Alexander. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Mr. McGovern is not here. Mr. Smith is not here. Mr. Doggett.
Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much. Thank you for the testimony you all have provided.

Adrian Smith disappeared from the meeting and never asked a question.


The next transcript is from January 30, 2007, "The Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic Outlook". The primary testimony from Dr. Peter Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The hearing lasted 2 hours, 35 minutes.

The transcript lists Adrian Smith as being present for the hearing. That's it. No questions asked.

The last transcript is from February 14, 2007, "Members’ Day". Approximately two dozen members of Congress testified before the committee on issues important to consider when formulating and finalizing the new budget. Member's Day was a very important day before the Budget Committee. The hearing lasted 4 hours, 45 minutes.

Once again, Adrian Smith is listed as being present for the hearing. His presence then only comes up one other time during the testimony:

Mr. Baird. Yes, I know. And I had a town hall on that very topic two weeks ago and I said any responsible adult between themselves experiencing physical pain or illness and suffering or passing it on to their kids would immediately say, ``Put the pain on me, spare my kids.'' When it comes to fiscal pain, this Congress and frankly the constituents and citizens themselves are complicit in passing it on to our kids and I applaud you for looking for a way to address that. And I call on the Ranking Member Mr. Smith to see if he has any questions or comments.
Mr. Smith. I do not yet. I appreciate the opportunity to review your testimony and I will probably speak later. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Good, thank you.I might say, I am going to look for opportunities to offer this in this session.......

"Smith is not known as a skilled lawmaker. He is not known for an ability to build constructive coalitions for complicated legislation. He is not known as a skilled public speaker. He has no reputation for making substantive issues the subjects for his priority bills. He is not a lawmaker whom backers seek out to be the prime sponsor of major legislation. He is not known as a leader. That reality cannot be wished away, talked away or TV-commercialed away. And it is one of the primary considerations 3rd District voters should weigh as they consider whether Smith has the habits of mind and action necessary to serve with distinction in one of this country's most powerful political posts.........

It needs a congressman with a strong ability to persuade. The ability to convince. The ability to lead. The ability to make a significant difference."


But I'm sure Adrian Smith is "proud" of the priviledge of posing for serving the people of Nebraska.

Does the Club for Growth Negatively Affect the GOP?

The Club for Growth announced last week that many of the GOP Presidential Candidates would be appearing at their winter conference. However:

Arizona Senator John McCain was invited to attend, but declined.

A report was recently posted on TPMCafe regarding comments John McCain made about the Club for Growth. He stated:

In the case of Club For Growth, I’ve got to be honest with you. Ronald Reagan taught me the 11th Commandment, and that is you don’t speak ill of other Republicans. The reason why we don’t have a majority in the Senate today was the attacks that Club For Growth made on Lincoln Chafee, the Senator from Rhode Island, a liberal Republican Senator, but would have voted for Mitch McConnell to be the Majority leader of the Senate. They have continuously attacked Republicans that they don’t agree with. I believe in the big tent party. I believe there’s room for someone from Rhode Island that may not agree with everything that I agree with. But I still want him in the Republican Party. That’s not the case with the Club For Growth. So I’m not sure what the Club For Growth and I have really in common.

McCain makes a very good point. Is he right? Does the Club for Growth damage the Grand Ole Party?

As most know by now, Adrian Smith jump right into bed with the Club for Growth from the very beginning. They dumped in an unheard-of amount of cash just into the Nebraska 3rd District Primary, to the tune of nearly $325,000, to get him nominated as the Republican candidate for the General Election.

How did that come about? I’m sure we all remember the very negative scare-tactic ads they placed for Smith that essentially said that if you voted for anybody but Smith, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy would take over the country. This would result in all your money going to government and terrorists reigning supreme. I know I got sick of them last April and May. In the end, their influence helped him to win. But what were the deeper affects of their involvement in a district that is so heavily Republican?

When the Club for Growth made their endorsements during the Primary, they wrote:

Here we have a clear cut race between two Republicans – one is a tax cutter, the other is a tax hiker.

…one of Adrian’s leading opponents is Jay Vavricek, the mayor of Grand Island. Not only has Vavricek supported sales tax hikes in the past, he led the fight for them, chairing committees to urge voters to back the proposals. He even called another tax increase for an event center “essential.”

Adrian’s other leading opponent is John Hanson, an aide to Congressman Tom Osborne, who is leaving this seat to run for governor. Hanson’s key priority is passage of a 2007 farm bill, including support for ethanol.

This is one of the safest Republican seats in the country – Bush beat Kerry by three to one! The winner of the May 9 primary will almost certainly win in November. The question is will the winner be Adrian Smith -- the Reaganite who believes in limited government and has acted consistently on those beliefs?

Ironic that McCain references Reagan in criticizing the Club for Growth. Yet, they also reference Reagan in pushing for the election of Adrian Smith.

I won’t defend Jay Vavricek. I was never a big supporter of his. But the half-cent sales tax was approved by the voters in 2004, which led to the 1-80 interchange at South Locust as well as the Library expansion. The Heartland Events Center….well, it provided for a place for the President to show up I guess. But, still, their criticism is misleading, something even I can acknowledge.

With John Hansen, not surprising they consider him unworthy because of his priority bill being the farm bill. After all, the Club for Growth’s Pat Toomey said that farm subsidies were “Moscow on the Mississippi” (which Adrian tried to defend and deflect from what was actually said).

So, right there is the Club for Growth working Republican against Republican.

In the April 2006 debate in Scottsbluff, the Club for Growth also came out as a wedge issue. Adrian Smith’s acceptance of the Club for Growth money was front and center. These are the highlights:

Throughout the debate, Smith, of Gering, ducked comments from his opponents about campaign contributions by the lobbying organization, Club for Growth.

Vavricek, a candidate who touted his business experience and experience as Grand Island mayor, was the first to lob the first shot at Smith during his response to a question about whether or not party loyalty should influence decisions in Washington.

Vavricek said he thought the key was being loyal to constituents, although the principles and common values shared among the Republican party would be a factor.

Referring to Smith, Vavricek said, "I have not sold out my interests to represent you."

Smith's campaign contributions came up again during questions on agricultural subsidies.

Harris, of Kilgore, described the organization as "dangerous to farmers and ranchers" because it doesn't support farm subsidies that he said are crucial to rural Nebraskans.

In his response to a direct question on accepting campaign contributions from out-of-state organizations, Smith said he was proud of his fund-raising efforts. Smith asserted that at least two of his opponents had sought the group's support.

Hanson, who served in current Third District Congressman Tom Osborne's office, said he had spoken with the organization, but during a telephone interview with the group said it became apparent they didn't support his stance on agricultural issues.

Hanson adamantly denied assertions by Harris that he had personally-interviewed with Club for Growth in a heated exchange, during which he referred to Harris as a liar.

Vavricek said he regretted that campaign contributions had become a part of the discussion - although he had been the first to bring up Smith's affiliation with the group earlier in the debate. Instead, he said he was proud that 99 percent of his contributions had come from Nebraskans and that he had conducted no out-of-state fund-raising, as Smith had asserted all the candidates had.

"I think its wrong that we have outside interests influencing elections," Vavricek said. "... I have to represent the people."

Smith said that although he had been successful in raising funds for his campaign, he dismissed his opponent's focus on his campaign contributions as rhetoric.

"You have to separate rhetoric from the record. He believed the issue came down to his record. The record is very clear as to who Adrian Smith is."

The Club for Growth connection then filtered into the general election. Adrian Smith’s allegiance with that group led to Republicans making a choice to back his opponent, Scott Kleeb. During a fundraiser in Kearney, they made comments about the CFG:

Some of the Kearney Republicans for Kleeb said they had supported candidate John Hanson of Kearney in the Republican primary because Hanson had the best grasp of agricultural issues. They said Hanson’s loss disappointed them, but they are angry because Smith won the primary using contributions from an organization that opposes farm subsidies.

“What disturbed me the most in the primary,” Kearney businessman Tom Henning said, “was that Club for Growth gave Adrian Smith $325,000. They (Club for Growth) are in favor of eliminating the USDA. I’m not certain what Smith’s motive was.”

Another Republican from Kearney listed as a host, businessman Brad Kernick, said he “doesn’t want to be painted as a turncoat,” but he is worried about long-term economic prospects in rural Nebraska.

“The most pressing issues are survival of smaller communities, which is directly linked to agriculture,” Kernick said. He said water shortages and water disputes also worry him.

Kernick and some of the other Kearney Republicans were hesitant to talk about supporting a Democrat, but Henning said Smith’s ties with Club for Growth cinched his decision to back Kleeb.

“Club for Growth is a serious issue. Adrian Smith may wish he never heard of Club for Growth before the race is over,” Henning said.

In the end, Adrian Smith did win. But did the numbers show the negative impact of the Club for Growth’s influence? Maybe. Maybe not.

An analysis of the 69 counties final votes shows that Adrian Smith’s percent of votes was higher than the percentage of registered Republicans in only 5 counties: Cedar, Greeley, Knox, Platte, Saline. But in those counties, it was clearly due to votes of Independents being evenly split. Also, Saline and Greeley had a very high Democrat and Independent registration compared registered Republicans. In the rest of the district, his percentage of votes was lower than the percentage of registered Republicans. His opponent, Scott Kleeb, actually got a much higher percentage of votes compared to the number of registered Democrats in all counties but one (Greeley by less than 1% difference). The numbers were clearly attributable to not only some independent votes, but also due to cross-over Republicans. In 20 Counties, Smith's vote percentage was 5-10% points less than the number of registered Republicans. In 15 Counties, his vote percentage was 10-20% points below. And in 5 counties his vote percentage was over 20% less. (Example: Loup County with 80.5% of voters registered Republican, but he only got 43.5% of the vote).

Whether they negatively impacted Smith or not, it is clear that many Republicans were finding they were torn between voting for a Republican, or sending a message to the Club for Growth. (Some of the votes can also be attributed to the President's last minute visit combined with the last minute flood of negative ads and robocalls). And if Adrian Smith continues his pattern of voting on behalf of his biggest contributor, it could further affect the district in a negative manner. How that will manifest itself is something we will just have to wait and watch for.

Republicans of the Third District will have to really think deeply about how they want the Club for Growth to affect their party. Will they take the view of John McCain? Or the view of Adrian Smith?

----------------------------------------------------------

In other stories, this article was posted from the Omaha World Herald tonight. Here are the highlights:

Trade Iraq pullout for drought funding?

Democrats have loaded the measure with funding for all manner of unrelated projects, including money for peanut storage, in an effort to pressure various lawmakers into supporting it.

The addition of $3.7 billion in drought relief makes it a thorny dilemma for first-term Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., who represents drought-stricken areas of Nebraska's heavily agricultural 3rd Congressional District.

"It's a struggle," Smith acknowledged Wednesday. "There's no way around that."

Drought relief is important, but Smith said he couldn't support attempts by Congress to micromanage the war.

He also criticized shoveling such items as peanut storage into "emergency" legislation, calling that fiscally irresponsible.

----

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, supports adding drought relief to the measure. He questioned why it would be considered inappropriate to include such funds.

"Why does it have to be limited to one topic?" he asked. "That (drought) is an emergency that has continued to be unaddressed for years now."

Those years of drought have taken a toll on livestock producers in Nebraska. Dry conditions have affected availability of feed for cattle and have prompted many producers to reduce the size of their herds, said Melody Benjamin of Nebraska Cattlemen.

That group supports drought relief but has stopped short of urging a vote for the Iraq funding bill. Benjamin sympathized with the position of Nebraska's congressmen.

"It does put them in a terrible spot, but that's politics," she said.

Adrian sounds overwhelmed.

Welcome to the big leagues, Mr. Smith. Still going around saying that this is hard work and you never get a break? Thought so......

----------------------------------------

On a follow up from yesterday, the Washington Post reported further on the Earmarks issue:

Lawmakers Seek Clarity on Earmarks

As the appropriations cycle revs up, confusion over the financial interest requirements comes amid other questions about the Democrats' earmark reform package. Some members, for example, have expressed uncertainty over whether earmark requests for regional projects signed by more than one lawmaker count against each member's individual pork allotment.

Still, some wondered whether at least a few questions were part of a dog-ate-my-homework effort to buy time or leniency on earmarks.

The Democrats will be having none of that, Elshami said. "Democrats have done more to reform the culture of corruption in two months than Republicans have done in two years," he said. "We will work with like-minded Republicans to address any glitches in the reform package, but we will not support any efforts to undo these fundamental reforms." The ethics committee, whose job it is to clarify the rules for members, could not respond to questions about how many members came forward with specific questions about the earmarks package, citing confidentiality rules.

Meanwhile, the Appropriations Committee signaled forgiveness on the blown deadline and pledged to help members confused about the earmarks process.

"We will look at the guidance . . . and we will work with members to address whatever issues they might have," committee spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said.

Essentially, the Democrats come out looking better in this matter than before BECAUSE of the tactics of Adrian Smith and Lee Terry. I say this because it appears they are going to let them turn in their requests late, even though the other 432 members of the House got their lists turned in DESPITE questions. If the vital projects in Nebraska get funded, it will not be because of Adrian Smith, it will be because the Democrats were lenient and willing to work WITH their "friends across the isle", not against them.

UPDATE: A reader posted a copy of the letter from David Obey on the Appropriations Committee on the previous topic. I'll attach it to this posting as a comment

Earmarks Too Ethically Confusing

Some members of Congress are finding the new rules over reporting and requesting earmarks too confusing. Adrian Smith of Nebraska is one of them.

In The Hill article "More House ethics confusion reigns, this time on earmarks", it states:

Republican legislative directors frantically exchanged e-mails last week as they sought guidance over a rule stipulating what a “financial interest” in an earmark was. Earmarks requests had to be filed by last Friday.

At least three members have decided against filing their earmarks altogether because of lack of clarity on the rules, and they signed a letter to Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) articulating their position.

One of them, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), said yesterday that he has decided against filing any earmarks because of the “ethical uncertainty of any earmark defining personal financial interest.”

For example, said Terry, current language could define a provision for sewer improvement as an earmark if it was done on property near the member’s home. Current rules could classify that as personal gain on a lawmaker’s property if the values increase as a result of better sewer management.

“There is so much uncertainty no matter how pure and emeritus an earmark may be,” Terry said.

Freshman Reps. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) and Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) also have opted not to file earmarks for fear of ethical pitfalls, according to their spokesmen.

The Omaha World Herald, in the article "Lee Terry's earmarks stall in Congress", they report:

If Nebraska's earmarks are not included in the House legislation, the state's U.S. senators, Democrat Ben Nelson and Republican Chuck Hagel, could lobby to include them in the Senate's version of the spending bills.

Nelson holds a seat on the Appropriations Committee, which gives him more pull in getting earmarks passed.

Senate requests need to be submitted in coming weeks, said Nelson spokesman David DiMartino, and the senator is working with the rest of the delegation.

However, if an earmark is not also included in House legislation, it is less likely to be funded, DiMartino said.

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., didn't submit any requests, either. A spokesman said Smith did not offer a list because the rules confusion cut short the process.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., submitted requests for earmarks but declined to release the list. A Fortenberry spokesman said he did not want to raise expectations. The spokesman said nearly all of Fortenberry's requests dealt with higher education, transportation, agricultural energy research and military construction.

So 2 of Nebraska's 3 representatives don't file earmarks at all because of confusion over the new rule, which also represents 2 out of "at least" 3 members of Congress that did this. This results in a total lack of representation for 2/3rd's of the state of Nebraska.

And what gets me is that Adrian Smith is one of them. Why? Well, because before he wasn't worried about the rule in terms of "what does 'financial interest' mean". He was worried he couldn't get any for the district at all.

As I previously reported, Adrian Smith made the following comments, which were reported by KNEB:

Third District Congressman Adrian Smith says he doesn't want a push to reform "earmarks" in the budget process to impact gaining additional funds for the Heartland Expressway. Earmarks for pet projects, especially to the last transportation bill, has resulted in calls for eliminating the "add-ons" to major funding measures.

Smith told the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee there are "good earmarks and bad earmarks" and reform to eliminate wasteful spending can't be allowed to stop future funding of the multi-state highway.

As I pointed out before, this was a false argument, and that when Mr. Smith implied that the Democrats would block funding such projects as the Heartland Expressway, which would benefit many states, he was being completely disingenuous. He was trying to say that, if vital earmarks for the Third District didn't get approved, it would be the Democrats fault under the new House rules.

Now, he's refused to submit a list of earmarks for the Third District because he doesn't understand what "financial interest" means. As a result, Smith's previous argument no longer can be made.

But this leads to a chance to speculate. What is he hiding? What earmarks were on his list that had him so ethically troubled? Could it be that, when revealed, we would find out that he is totally and completely beholden to the people who paid his way to Washington DC, rather than the regular, everyday citizens of the Third District? Is he so totally out of his league in DC that, even with puppet strings being tugged, he gets lost frequently, and this is just one of those times?

Whatever the real reason is, if vital projects do not get funded in the Third District, it will directly be Adrian Smith's fault for not submitting his request in a timely manner. He will then be expected to answer to the citizens of the Third District, and no hiding behind his staff via "press releases" will be allowed.

House Actions 3/12/07 - 3/16/07

Another week in the House of Representatives, another update on Adrian Smith’s activities.

We will start with the roll call votes. First, there were 3 ceremonial bills that passed unanimously:

H RES 136 - Commending the Girl Scouts of America on the occasion of their 95th anniversary
H RES 89 - Dutch-American Friendship Day
H RES 228 - Recognizing the 186th anniversary of the independence of Greece and celebrating Greek and American democracy

There were also 2 other bills this week that had a bigger meaning behind them, but were still bills expressing the views of the House of Representatives:

H.RES.64 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Bangladesh should immediately drop all pending charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

H.RES.222 - Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, as a blueprint for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and for other purposes.

There were a total of 21 roll call votes this week.

H.R.85 - To provide for the establishment of centers to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies.

This bills makes some changes to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It came through the Science & Technology Committee, which Smith is a part of. However, he appears to have had no real active part of this bill.

It passed 395-1-37, with Smith voting for it.


H.R.1254 - To amend title 44, United States Code, to require information on contributors to Presidential library fundraising organizations.

According to the CRS Summary, this bill is called the “Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007”. This bill requires quarterly reports to be filed with the National Archives listing those that donated over $200, that this information be made available to the public by internet, and makes it unlawful to knowingly submit false information, complete with criminal penalties.

It passed on a vote of 390-34-9:
FOR: 162 Republicans, 228 Democrats
AGAINST: 34 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this bill.


H.R.1255 - To amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records.

This is known as the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007”. It further clarifies how records can and cannot be released by the Archivist.

This bill passed on a vote of 333-93-7.
FOR: 104 Republicans, 229 Democrats
AGAINST: 93 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this bill.

For the record, Eric Cantor and John Boehner voted against this bill, while Roy Blunt voted for. Reps Terry & Fortenberry also voted for it.


H.R.1309 - To promote openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.

This bill is designed to further clarify and codify disclosure of documents to the public. It should make it easier and more timely. It also gets rid of some of the restrictions that the Bush Administration previously put in place.

This bill passed on a vote of 308-117-8.
FOR: 80 Republicans, 228 Democrats
AGAINST: 117 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this bill.

For the record, Boehner, Cantor and Terry voted against this bill, while Blunt and Fortenberry voted for it.


H.RES.239 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 985) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.

This establishes the rules under which HR 985 can be debated and considered. As before, there are two roll call votes on this.

On ordering the previous question, the vote was 224-197-12
On agreeing to the Resolution, the vote was 223-193-17

These were partisan votes, and Smith went with his party to vote NO both times.


Before continuing to HR 985, the House had to handle unfinished business by approving the previous day’s journal. This is done on a daily basis, and this is the first time I’ve seen a roll call vote called for.

It passed, but with surprising objections, on a vote of 265-157-1-10.
FOR: 48 Republicans, 217 Democrats
AGAINST: 146 Republicans, 11 Democrats
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 6 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST approving the Journal. Why he would vote against the journal is beyond me. But Terry, Boehner, Blunt and Cantor did as well.


Next, Republican Rep. Westmoreland called for an Adjournment. The Republicans have done this in the past if they don’t want to move on with the debate of a bill they don’t like, in this case the Whistleblower bill.

The motion failed on a vote of 142-258-33.
FOR: 141 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 39 Republicans, 219 Democrats
NO VOTE: 21 Republicans, 12 Democrats
Smith voted FOR the Adjournment, along with Terry, Boehner, Blunt and Cantor.



H.R.985 - To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.

This is also known as the "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007". It further protects whistleblowers who disclose unlawful information.

There were 6 amendments offered during debate, 4 of which passed on a voice vote.

H.AMDT.41 was introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak, the purpose of the amendment being “to clarify that instances of political interference with science are to be considered `abuses of authority' and their disclosure therefore protected. The Stupak amendment adds an example of such interference, namely preventing a federal scientist or grantee from publishing or presenting their research.”

This got two votes, passing both times. The reason for this is that Price of Georgia demanded a second vote. I could not find out why, but two votes were taken.

Vote 1 passed 250-178-10.
FOR: 20 Republicans, 230 Democrats
AGAINST: 178 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 6 Democrats

Vote 2 passed 252-173-8.
FOR: 23 Republicans, 229 Democrats
AGAINST: 173 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats

Smith voted AGAINST the amendment both times, along with Blunt, Boehner and Cantor. Fortenberry and Terry voted for it both times.


H.AMDT.44 was introduced by Rep. Bill Sali, the purpose being “to remove the provision that would make influencing federally funded scientific research a prohibited personnel practice.”

Essentially, language in the main bill would prohibit outside, privately funded research from coming in and exerting a political influence on government-funded research. A person that found out this was happening and reported it would be protected. This is a result of the political influences on research by the Bush Administration for the last several years. For example, a political appointee removing any references by government scientists that support global warming in a final EPA report. Sali’s amendment would basically allow the political influences to continue and not protect the whistleblower.

The amendment failed on a vote of 159-271-8.
FOR: 159 Republicans
AGAINST: 39 Republicans, 232 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment, along with Terry, Blunt, Boehner and Cantor.

On a motion to Recommit with Instructions to the House Oversight and Government committee, the motion was passed on a unanimous roll call vote. The Amendments were approved and the motion was made to vote on the passage of the bill.

The bill passed on a vote of 331-94-8.
FOR: 102 Republicans, 229 Democrats
AGAINST: 94 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill along with the big 3 Republican leadership of Blunt, Boehner & Cantor. The other Nebraska Reps, Terry & Fortenberry, voted for it.

Why would Adrian Smith vote against a bill that protects those people who report misconduct? If anything, that is something that should always be supported. In this case, he was even in the minority of his own party.


H.RES.242 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1362) to reform acquisition practices of the Federal Government.

Once again you have a resolution laying out the rules by which to debate a bill. Once again it’s a partisan vote, with Republicans voting against, and Democrats voting for. With the Democrats in the majority, the resolution passed allowing for the debate of HR 1362.


H.R.1362 - To reform acquisition practices of the Federal Government.

This bill limit’s the length of time for non-competitive contracts and provides for greater government oversight. Once again, this is a reaction to Bush Administration policies that have handed over literally billions to non-competitive contacts, and which has resulted in billions being unaccounted for by the contractors. Halliburton has been the biggest perpetrator of these abuses.

There were two amendments offered and approved with a voice vote.

A motion was made to recommit with instructions to the House Oversight and Government Committee. The motion passed on a vote of 309-114-10.
FOR: 194 Republicans, 115 Democrats
AGAINST: 114 Democrats
NO VOTE: 7 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted for the motion.


The committee offered a 3rd amendment that was approved by voice vote, then the bill came up for a final vote.

The bill passed on a vote of 347-73-13.
FOR: 119 Republicans, 228 Democrats
AGAINST: 73 Republicans
NO VOTE: 9 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this bill. I congratulate him for doing so in this matter, because it represents one of those very rare times he has voted opposite of Blunt, Boehner and Cantor, all of whom voted against it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Adrian Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week. He did add his name on to 4 bills as a cosponsor:

H.R.419 - To provide assistance to agricultural producers for crop and livestock losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 as a result of natural disasters, and for other purposes.

This bill was actually introduced on 1/11/2007. Smith just now added his name on 3/12/2007.

H.R.549 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase, extend, and make permanent the above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

This bill was actually introduced on 1/18/2007. Smith just now added his name on 3/12/2007.

H.R.698 - To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to establish industrial bank holding company regulation, and for other purposes.

Bill was introduced 1/29/2007. Smith added his name on 3/13/2007.

H.R.997 - To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

Bill was introduced on 2/12/2007. Smith added his name on 3/13/2007.



Smith currently ranks as number 46 out of 53 of the Freshman members of the House for number of bills sponsored and cosponsored.

Smith made no floor statements this week, and it does not appear that he has vocally participated in any of the committee meetings for which transcripts are starting to appear. The Science & Tech transcripts are coming up, but the Budget and Agriculture minutes have not yet appeared.

Smith Opinion Article on Agriculture

Adrian Smith has once again penned an opinion article. Once again it’s ran in the Scottsbluff Star-Herald. Once again I’ve searched far and wide through all the other 3rd District newspapers and have not found it. I will be checking on the Chadron Record to see if they run it at some point, as they did Smith’s Global Warming opinion article. This is a scan of the article:




I went through the article several times and, quite frankly, it doesn’t really say anything. It reads like a campaign piece, ending with his usual “I’m Proud…” statement that we heard constantly during his campaign. Adrian Smith appears to have not gotten out of campaign mode yet.

There are only about 3 things said that actually have some substance, which I will address one by one.

The 3rd District of Nebraska is one of the largest agricultural districts in the country and is home to more than 30,000 farmers and ranchers.

I think he meant to say that it’s home to just over 32,000 farms and ranches. According to the Nebraska Department of Economic Development, as of 2002, there were 32,042 farms in the 3rd District counties. The 2000 Census listed the farm population for the entire state as nearly 89,000.

Any attempt to make major reforms of the current farm program must be in the long-term interest of Nebraska Agriculture.

No kidding. And Adrian Smith has been very busy pushing the revenue-based farm payments. This prompts me to show this exchange from the North Platte Telegraph again:

Rotarian Mike Jacobson said this year is the first he can remember without a huge farm crisis facing producers.

“We have high corn prices, but are we going to have a lot of land in the hands of non-producers?” Jacobson said.

Jacobson noted that periods of higher prices tend to end with a crash, and told Smith that $1.55 bushel corn could come back.

Smith said crop insurance based on production should be changed to crop insurance based on revenue.

Rotarian Mike Jacobson asked Smith about dryland producers, prompting Smith to bring up the production based insurance, again.

“We need to get away from production based payments,” Smith said.

When I attended the UNL/KSU Farm Bill Seminar last month, the farmers there were very knowledgeable and provided a lot of great information. Revenue-based payments would be okay for the irrigated farmers. However, the production-based payments would better support the dryland producers. And here’s a reality they all could see: water is most likely going to continue to be an issue. Nebraska is entering it’s 8th year in drought conditions, with the panhandle hardest hit. More farmers will probably be finding themselves turning to dryland production (the farmers in the Republican River valley already find themselves in this situation). So while Adrian Smith keeps pushing that all must become revenue based, they suggested that there needs to be more than one option based on the type of production. Smith has been trying to show he’s listening to the farmers, but this article, the phone call, and his listening tour were more shows of posturing. He needs to stop the posturing and start REALLY listening.

As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I am also putting a priority on expanding modern technology in our district to support new and existing businesses, attract new employers, and make our rural communities more competitive in the modern economy.

Mr. Smith has yet to put his name on any bills, either as sponsor or cosponsor, that matches the above criteria, let alone step up and take a lead on any Science and Technology bills. This is an empty claim that has not been fulfilled.


Why does Adrian Smith keep having articles published that are only seen by the residents of the panhandle? Why does he continue to make claims that aren't substantiated? Why does he feel the need to put out empty rhetoric and posturing statements in place of actually doing something?

Actions speak much louder than words, and those actions are even louder when they match the words that are actually being spoken.

Odds and Ends in the Media

Opinions posted in The Chadron Record in response to Adrian Smith’s Global Warming article:

Smith vague on global warming facts

The longer Smith retains his minority position, the more our views will become marginalized in Congress. I share Smith’s belief that he owes this district “more than just a public relations campaign.” In turn, I sincerely wish he would put us firmly on a path toward an economically and environmentally beneficial future before this opportunity passes us by.


Congressman Smith wrong about global warming

Energy efficiency, renewable energy, and reduced use of fossil fuels are benefits to the economy of the state of Nebraska and Nebraska farmers.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Adrian Smith's getting good at his little ceremonial announcements:

Grand Island residents nominated for national Hispanic summit

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith nominated three Nebraskans, including two from Grand Island, for the National Hispanic Leadership Summit Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington D.C.
The nominees are State Sen. Ray Aguilar and Yolanda Nuncio, both of Grand Island; and Mary Ann Shockley of Scottsbluff.

Given his power rankings, this is probably the best that he can do right now.

----------------------------------------------

A group voices issue with the CAFO bill that Senator Hagel put forth. Smith recent put in the House version (previously introduced by Congressman Osborne). This is their position on the matter:

Stop Increased Subsidies for Factory Farms

H.R. 1217 seeks to increase taxpayer handouts to cruel and inhumane animal industries

Already heavily subsidized by the government, factory farming is set to receive another handout at the expense of taxpayers next month. U.S. Representative Adrian Smith has introduced H.R. 1217, a bill that would provide tax incentives to owners of "concentrated animal feeding operations" (CAFOs), also known as factory farms. Unless concerned citizens make their voices and those of the animals heard, the House may hand even more subsidies to a financially-pampered industry that is responsible for the most widespread abuse of animals in the world.

Not saying I agree with them, but it is another view for people to read and decide for themselves what they think of this bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Another example of Adrian Smith's ability to not give straight answers:

Nebraskans in Congress supporting 'don't ask'

Smith said he wants to hear from military leaders before considering any policy changes.

What he says doesn't differ much from any of the other Nebraska politicians, but he fell short of their definitive "I support" type statements. Wonder why? Either you do or you don't.

--------------------------------------------------

Couple issues with this one:

Health costs at top of list

There is growing momentum on the state and federal level to control rising costs of prescription drugs for Medicaid and Medicare and an advocacy organization of Nebraska for seniors is working to keep the pendulum swinging.
.
.
Third District Congressman Adrian Smith voted against the Negotiation Act, saying H.R. 4 would remove the negotiating process from the private sector and move it into the public sector.

“The Senator has concerns about government price controls,” said Smith’s communications director Charles Isom on Monday, noting the Veteran’s Administration as an example, which formally excludes 20 out of the top 33 most commonly prescribed drugs, including Lipitor.

“The Senator is a believer in the market system, free market and Congress needs to keep federal government out of private business,” Isom said.

First, when did Adrian Smith become a Senator? Second, this is yet another example of how Smith will always support business before the people he represents. The CBO and the CRS Summary make it VERY clear that bill is not one that would allow price controls! But, when you've been bought and paid for by the Club for Growth, you will sing their tune on this:

This bill is nothing more than an effort to impose price controls, which would stifle innovation, and over time, prevent the development of new potentially life-saving drugs.

As the Heritage Foundation notes, "If it is allowed, government "negotiation" with drug makers would not be negotiation in the common meaning of the term but rather fixing prices below those reductions already achieved in the market in order to get, on paper at least, larger discounts than [Pharmacy Benefit Managers] do today. To achieve those additional savings, Congress would need to wield a hammer that is unavailable to PBMs. And the only real tool the government has that private plans do not is the ability to deny all seniors access to specific drugs if the manufacturers refuse a government-set price. This would be, in effect, a price control scheme, enforced by denying patients access to drugs. The effectiveness of this approach would depend on Congress's willingness to deny seniors access to some, or even many, prescription drugs."

Their $550,000 investment continues to be paid back in dividends, this time at the expense of Nebraska seniors.

Don't tell me you're suprised about this.

Adrian’s Power Rankings

An interesting site to check out is Congress.Org’s Power Rankings for the politicians in Washington. You can go to the site to read about how they come up with these rankings.

This is how Adrian Smith ranks in some of the various categories:

State: 3 out of 3
House: 429 out 439 (this include the At-large Reps).
House Republicans: 190 out of 202
Class of 2006: 42 out of 53
House Agriculture Committee: 45 out of 46
House Budget Committee: 38 out of 38
House Science Committee: 44 out of 44

----------------------------------------

In this article from the Omaha World Herald, Scrutiny of new drugs called lax, it talks about a woman that suffered from several strokes while taking the drug Vioxx. She recently testified before Congress and talked with Nebraska's representatives. In the article, it states:

Her congressman, Adrian Smith, R-Neb., expressed support for protecting consumers and said some changes may be in order. But he also cited a need to not slow the approval of new drugs.

Read it closely. Adrian Smith said what he needed to make the woman happy, but when you really evaluate the words, you hear that he would most likely never do anything that stops the drug companies from pushing through the approvals on their drugs. Any slowing of the process would decrease their bottom lines. So, once again, pro-business Adrian takes a stand, but forgets about the “little people” he’s supposed to be representing. He makes a habit of saying he “supports” many things, but most of the time that really isn’t the case, especially of the business owner is affected.

-----------------------------------

Smith’s office put out the following press release:

Smith to Tour Walter Reed Hospital

WASHINGTON, DC- Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) today announced he will tour Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Monday afternoon with 10 other Members of Congress. This will be Smith's second visit to the hospital.

Smith plans to visit with Nebraska service members at Walter Reed.

"No member of our armed forces should be deprived of care or receive substandard treatment. Though I am concerned by the situation at Walter Reed, I am glad action is being taken. The Pentagon has instituted an independent commission to review the level and professionalism of care in military hospitals across the country.

"What happened here should never happen again. We owe the brave men and women in uniform our best and that is what we must deliver."

Adrian Smith should visit our Nebraska soldiers. Hopefully he will actually listen to what they have to say. But I hope his visit doesn’t get in the way of their care. Too many times, politicians do things like this for photo ops and make themselves appear to be doing something. The fiasco with Walter Reed Hospital has probably resulted in every Tom, Dick and Adrian Smith descending on the place. Do they really need 535 members of Congress stomping through there day in and day out? Smith is not on any committees that deal directly with Walter Reed. So, while I hope he does visit our Nebraska wounded as our Nebraska Representative, I hope he does it in a way that lets the doctors and nurses keep doing their jobs, and allowing the wounded to continue their recovery.

And I hope he really REALLY listens, and doesn’t spout off Republican talking point statements upon return. If he comes back and says they are all for the President’s plan, and continuation of troops in Iraq, and that’s what they ALL said, we will know he’s not being truthful. The fact is that the soldiers themselves are just as torn on what is the right approach as the rest of this nation. Their primary focus is what is needed to protect their fellow soldiers. To be a true representative, Smith needs to listen to, acknowledge, and respect all their views, not just the ones that fit the extreme-right pre-determined positions in his party.

House Actions 3/5/07 - 3/9/07

Since starting this blog, every week I’ve checked the “Floor Summary” on the House’s web site. This is a running summary of the activities on the floor. This summary will update every few minutes when the House is in session, so you can see it live during the day. Every week, I’ve looked for a mention of Adrian Smith’s name, and he got his first two mentions this week. On March 5 and March 9, it states:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - The Chair designated Mr. Smith of NE to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

--------------------------------------------------------

I have to backtrack to an update for last weeks summary. Someone had commented about Adrian Smith speaking last week, and there had not been any transcript of this present. I had double checked when I responded, but there were no statements on the record for Smith. Well, THOMAS did make a mistake, and the statement for March 1 was just posted on March 8. This was a statement on the Employee Free Choice Act:

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The feedback I get from individual workers in my district, they believe that stronger laws are needed to protect the secret ballot election process in the workplace. H.R. 800 would strip away this right from workers, and this is simply unfair.

Removing secret ballot elections is unfair to individual workers because it opens them up to retaliation. By having to publicly express support for or against any measure, this legislation would leave workers vulnerable to coercion and intimidation, and I cannot in good conscience support it.

Secret ballots actually enhance collective bargaining. Because I believe a worker's right to a secret ballot should be protected, I am cosponsoring the Secret Ballot Protection Act. This legislation would guarantee individual workers the right to secret ballot elections and ensure them the right to freely choose whether or not to join a union.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for individual worker's rights, to protect the secret ballot, and to vote against H.R. 800.

I’ve already commented extensively on this, and I won’t rehash, but needless to say Smith is misleading. This bill did not strip away the right to a secret ballot election. But, the bill did put more protections in place for employees to not face discrimination and intimidation tactics by employers. Given that Smith is VERY pro-business rights, this is not the least bit surprising.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 17 roll call votes this week on bills before the House. Let’s get the list of ceremonial bills out of the way first. They all passed without issue:

H.R.995 - To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.
H.R.497 - To authorize the Marion Park Project, a committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation, to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia, and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion.
H.RES.98 - Honoring the life and achievements of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior and reaffirming the continued commitment of the House of Representatives to a just and lasting peace in the Republic of the Sudan.
H.RES.149 - Supporting the goals of International Women's Day.

--------------------------------------------------

These were the roll call votes for the week:

H.R.569 - To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants.

This bill pertained to reauthorizing sewer overflow control grant assistance and clarification of some guidelines. There were 4 amendments offered to the bill: 2 were agreed upon by voice vote, one was ruled not germane to the contents of the bill, and one received a roll call vote.

H.AMDT.25 was sponsored by Tom Price of Georgia. It stated:

No authorization of appropriations made by this Act or other provision of this Act that results in costs to the Federal Government shall be effective except to the extent that this Act provides for offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect of this Act does not either increase the Federal deficit or reduce the Federal surplus.

Price felt this was necessary for PAYGO, but those against this amendment felt it confused matters, as this bill didn’t actually produce funding, but authorized that appropriations could be established for this ongoing program. This statement explains further:

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

The amendment confuses the issue of authorization of appropriations and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations process. This amendment would require that any authorization of appropriations be considered with the corresponding offset, regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding.

The amendment failed to pass on a vote of 166-260-13.
FOR: 165 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 32 Republicans, 228 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 8 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this Amendment.

The next vote was on a motion to recommit with instructions to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This roll call vote was unanimous.

The committee, being present in the chamber, submitted a 5th Amendment, H.AMD.27, which was “An amendment inserting at the end of the bill a new section on limitation on the use of funds.” This amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

The bill came up for a final vote and passed 367-58-8.
FOR: 139 Republicans, 58 Democrats
AGAINST: 58 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this bill.


H.R.710 - To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to provide that criminal penalties do not apply to paired donations of human kidneys, and for other purposes.

This bill passed unanimously.


H.RES.219 - Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 202) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

This establishes the rules under which to consider H.Res.202.

The resolution passed on a vote of 228-195-10.
FOR: 1 Republican, 227 Democrats
AGAINST: 194 Republicans, 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 6 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this resolution.

H.RES.202 - Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

This bill, as noted, allows for the expenses of the various committees. This ended up getting a somewhat partisan vote. From what I can tell, it hinged on at least 2 things.

First, the Republicans felt the Ethics committee should have $1 Million than it was allocated. However, the Democrats pointed out that the Chairwoman testified that, while an extra amount would be nice, she felt they could operate efficiently and effectively on the amount allocated.

The second problem Republican’s had was that the bill also set up a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. They felt that the House Administration Committee did not have jurisdiction to set up this select committee. But, one only has to look at the wording in the bills, which states that the new select committee:

…..shall not have legislative jurisdiction and shall have no authority to take legislative action on any bill or resolution. Its sole authority shall be to investigate, study, make findings, and develop recommendations on policies, strategies, technologies and other innovations, intended to reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy and achieve substantial and permanent reductions in emissions and other activities that contribute to climate change and global warming.

The rest of the bill the Republican minority stated they agreed with.

The bill passed on a vote of 269-150-14.
FOR: 44 Republicans, 225 Democrats
AGAINST: 149 Republicans, 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 8 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.


H.R.700 - To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot program for alternative water source projects.

This is the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007, which amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to increase the amount of authorized appropriations for the pilot program for alternative water source projects from $75 Million to $125 Million.

There were 5 amendments offered: 2 were agreed to on a voice vote, 2 were withdrawn by the sponsors.

One of the amendments, H.AMDT.30, was offered by Tom Price of Georgia. It was word for word the same amendment he had offered on H.R.569 above. Once again, those opposed to this amendment had to explain to him the difference in bills:

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I appreciate the fashion of the gentleman from Georgia, and I respect his consistency. He offered the same amendment yesterday. We had quite a thorough and extensive discussion and a recorded vote, which ended 166-260.

Again, I appeal to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with an authorization. Tomorrow we will be dealing with a different bill that does result in a direct spending reduction as determined by the Congressional Budget Office and for which the committee created an offset and reduced the size of the bill.

This bill, H.R. 700, is not a direct spending bill, and has been so verified by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget. It is not subject to the so-called PAYGO rules. An appropriation subsequently could well be subject to PAYGO, but we have yet before us the congressional budget process. We have to vote on a budget, and then we consider the appropriations. If this legislation is enacted in time for the appropriation process, hopefully it could be considered and included, and then there is a question of whether it is subjected to the PAYGO rules.

But in its present form, this is an authorization. It is not a direct spending. It is not subject, as Congressional Budget Office has ruled, to the PAYGO rules. And we made that point yesterday. We make it again today. And I rise in opposition to the amendment, but not in opposition to the approach of the gentleman, who is a true fiscal conservative and wants to ensure that dollars are wisely spent and that we are not overspending.

I assure the gentleman, this legislation, modest as it is in its scope of dollars authorized, will be subjected to the rigorous oversight of OMB, Congressional Budget Office, procedure and the appropriation process in its new course.

H.AMDT.30 FAILED on a vote of 176-256-6.
FOR: 175 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 22 Republicans, 234 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 1 Democrat
Smith voted FOR this Amendment.

Next there was a motion to recommit with instructions to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who made a minor amendment in wording. This motion passed unanimously.


H.R.700 then came up for a final vote, which passed 368-59-6.
FOR: 138 Republicans, 230 Democrats
AGAINST: 59 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL.

This vote puzzles me. Both Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry of Nebraska voted for this bill. Also, in a statement released by House Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Minority Leader John Mica, he explained HR 700:

H.R. 700 extends the pilot program for alternative water source projects, such as water reclamation, reuse and conservation, and authorizes $125 million for EPA grants to water resource development agencies for such projects. The program leverages non-Federal resources by requiring a non-Federal cost share of 50%.

“Many communities cannot meet their water supply needs and are looking at alternative ways of alleviating their water shortages,” Mica said. “Adequate water is needed to sustain our nation’s economic growth and viability.”

Given that the third district is an agricultural district that also has a large area of stationary sand dunes, and which has had over 7 years of drought now, wouldn’t you think this is a good project to keep going? Obviously a majority of Republicans thought so, as well as the Democrats. Smith, however, voted against this. He'll probably say something about “fiscal responsibility”, but water is an absolute necessity. If some communities need help finding alternative sources, they should get that help.


H.RES.229 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 720) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes.

Another one of those resolutions setting forth the rules for consideration of a bill, in this case H.R.720. It passed on a vote of 229-179-25.
FOR: 9 Republicans, 220 Democrats
AGAINST: 177 Republicans, 2 Democrats
NO VOTE: 15 Republicans, 10 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this resolution.


H.R.720 - To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes.

There were 7 amendments offered: 5 were agreed to by voice vote, 1 was withdrawn by the sponsor, 1 went to a roll call vote.

H.AMDT.35 was an amendment to remove the Davis-Baker sections of the bill. Okay, what is that? I had to do a bit of reading up, but this is what it boiled down to: Back in 1994 a Davis-Baker portion of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act expired. Including this into the new bill "renews the requirement that contractors and subcontractors on treatment works projects constructed with assistance from the state revolving funds will be paid not less than prevailing wages, as determined under the Davis-Bacon Act."

On one side you have those opposed to the inclusion of this in the bill. The Minority state:

The inclusion of this provision will impose untold costs on state and local governments, hitting states across the nation without prevailing wage laws particularly hard.

Instead of helping communities complete more of their badly needed wastewater projects, this provision will have the opposite effect by artificially inflating project costs and reducing the number of projects we’ll be able to fund.

Then you have the Majority opinion:

Not only does this legislation assist many communities nationwide that are least able to afford necessary improvements to their water infrastructure systems, it also protects American workers by requiring employers to pay an honest wage for an honest day’s work. H.R. 720 differs from similar legislation in previous Congresses, because it specifies that the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirement shall apply to all projects financed in whole or in part through an SRF.

At a time when America’s working families are being squeezed by stagnant incomes and rising costs, ensuring that Davis-Bacon is applied to federally-funded construction projects is a key step in making the economy fairer. This issue was extensively debated during subcommittee and full committee markups of the bill, and I am pleased that amendments to delete prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act were defeated again today.

Congress has applied Davis-Bacon protections to federally-financed construction in 63 separate instances.

Essentially this comes down to business owners versus workers: Who should be supported? My take is that by enforcing decent wages, this puts the business owners in a position of hiring the most skilled labor available. In doing that, they can cut the cost that would be incurred by laborers making mistakes that have far less skills but are willing to work for much smaller wages. But you, the reader, can make up your own mind.

The Amendment failed on a vote of 140-280-18.
FOR: 140 Republicans
AGAINST: 50 Republicans, 230 Democrats
NO VOTE: 12 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

It should be noted that Jeff Fortenberry also voted for this amendment, but Lee Terry voted against it.

The next vote was a motion to recommit with instructions to the House Transportation and Infrastructer Committee. This motion passed on a vote of 359-56-18.
FOR: 187 Republicans, 172 Democrats
AGAINST: 2 Republicans, 54 Democrats
NO VOTE: 12 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this motion.

The Committee provided for an additional amendment, agreed to by voice vote.

The bill then came up for the final vote. It passed 303-108-22.
FOR: 79 Republicans, 224 Democrats
AGAINST: 108 Republicans
NO VOTE: 14 Republicans, 8 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this bill.

Fortenberry and Terry also voted for this bill. And congratulations for Smith voting in opposition to Roy Blunt and Eric Cantor’s positions (they voted against this bill)!!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Adrian Smith made one floor statement this week, on March 9, during the morning statements (it‘s time when they can get up and talk about anything they want basically):

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right and pass a clean supplemental.

The bill unveiled yesterday would tie our military leaders' hands at the very time they need our support the most. Some want to set a date certain. The reality is the only certain part of this plan is that President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, and critical funding for our troops would be needlessly delayed.

This plan is dangerous, and I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this war funding proposal. Even Members of the majority party are reacting negatively to the proposal, as well they should.

Everyone agrees that we must make progress in Iraq. We also agree the Iraqi Government must step up and improve the situation. What the Republicans are going to stand against is tying the funds our soldiers need to do their jobs to benchmarks thought up by special interest groups.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the best, and a haphazard approach is not it. We can do better. We must do better.

Smith also made statements to the Nebraska press, who reported on this:

Smith says drought relief should not be tied to Iraq bill


In doing a search around the internet, people are torn on both sides of the isle on how to go about this. However, it seems like so many have been saying “what’s your plan”, Adrian Smith especially. The Democrats are putting forth a goal. He doesn’t agree. But I like what Joe Scarborough said this week. Joe’s a former Republican Congressman from Florida, who now has his own daily show on MSNBC, “Scarborough Country”. In his article, I’ve had it! Enough with stupid Iraq debates!, he said:

I ask those of you in the stay-the-course crowd whether we will deter terrorism more effectively over the next decade if our troops are trapped in Iraq or rested and ready to strike Iran, North Korea or Pakistan in the event that our nation’s safety depends on our commander in chief being able to make that threat with a straight face. If you have to mull that one over you are too clueless to operate common household appliances, let alone debate military readiness in the 21st century.

The war on terror will not be helped by expending more American lives, trillions of dollars and American military readiness over a civil war where Sunni roadside bombs and Shiite death squads are the most advanced means of offensive weaponry. Grisly stuff to be sure, but not a threat to kill millions of Americans in Manhattan, Washington or L.A.

For those Republicans who continue to tell me we cannot lose in Iraq, I have one question: What is the price of victory? Is it worth a loss in Afghanistan? A nuclear Iran? A reinvigorated al-Qaida with nuclear weapons?

He goes on to basically slam both Republicans and Democrats on this issue. But his ending is worth noting. It’s a wake up call:

The time for name-calling is over

So what do we do, Republican hot shot? Stay the course? Keep the Shiite militias disarmed so Sunnis can slaughter thousands of Shiites in the coming years? Do we let al-Sadr reengage to protect his people, while allowing him to commit atrocities every bit as brutal as Saddam’s?

Do we send our sons, daughters, moms and dads in the middle of this civil war with targets on their backs? Or do we give them the freedom to go out there and kick ass? Throwing ourselves more aggressively into that urban civil war might guarantee some military successes but would also create the type of human rights violations that Americans no longer tolerate.

So what’s the answer, Democratic genius? Calling George Bush an idiot? A liar? Have a plan? If not, shut your mouth.

The time for name-calling is over. Republicans or Democrats will not solve this crisis. Americans will. We need leaders. Stupid people need not apply.

Will America be the world’s 911? Will Congress fund the 200,000 new troops needed to continue fighting every Islamic extremist movement across the world over the next 40 years? Will our presidents recognize the limits of U.S. power? Will we remind ourselves 10 years from now that while we can win any war on the globe, we can also lose any occupation? Will we force Europe to end its vacation from history and start acting like grown-ups?

Perhaps. But it would help if we started acting like grown-ups first.

We must overcome our petty political differences if we are to protect our homeland. The time for fighting each other is over. The time for putting party over country has ended. The time to come together is now.

"When shall we expect the approach of danger?” Abraham Lincoln once asked a divided America. “Shall some transatlantic giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever, or die by suicide."

The American Hour is upon us. This is no time for childish debates. Will we unite as Americans or die while fighting among ourselves?

Agree or disagree with him, but Adrian Smith seems so intent to take the postion of "I'll always be against anything the Democrats offer up", then maybe he should stop and listen to the point of view of a Republican and true conservative. Wait, what am I thinking. He thinks his fellow Nebraskan Chuck Hagel is against success in Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------------

Adrian Smith did do something fun this week:

Smith Announces Third District Congressional Art Competition Winning Artists

----------------------------------------------------------

Smith did not submit any new bills as a sponsor this week, but did add his name onto 5 more bills as a co-sponsor:


H.R.315 - To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts with community health care providers to improve access to health care for veterans in highly rural areas, and for other purposes.

This bill was introduced clear back on January 5, 2007. He just now added his name.

H.R.699 - To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was introduced back on January 29, 2007, and is one of those ideological bills that will probably resignate with ideological voters. The CRS Summary states:

Pledge Protection Act of 2007 - Amends the federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.

Makes this limitation inapplicable to: (1) any court established by Congress under its power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States; or (2) the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

It brings constitutionality issues up. Completely barring courts from being able “to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance,” is probably not even constitutional. The Pledge would probably have to be protected under the Constitution, which would require an amendment. Because the Pledge of Allegance has had several changes over the decades, that probably won’t be the case as their is an history presidence for change, and that's what court cases have basically been about.


The remaining 3 were just introduced this week:

H.R.1333 - To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of the Air Force to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions.

H.R.1398 - To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 to provide that manure shall not be considered to be a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.

H.R.1462 - To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir.


When it comes to the total number of bills sponsored and cosponsored among the House Freshman, Adrian Smith once again ranks at 49 out of 53 with his 2 sponsored bills and 19 co-sponsored bills.

This weeks top 10 go-getters are:

(Name, Party, State, Sponsored, Cosponsored)
1. Stephen Cohen, D-TN, 4, 152
2. Philip Hare, D-IL 2, 124
3. Mazie Hirono, D-HI, 2, 115
4. Hank Johnson, D-GA, 2, 107
5. Keith Ellison, D-MN, 0, 99
6. Patrick Murphy, D-PA, 1, 74
7. Chris Carney, D-PA, 5, 60
8. Betty Sutton, D-OH, 1, 59
9. Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH, 0, 55
10. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, 11, 41

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to be working on a new letter to Adrian. Either comment or, better yet, send me an email (just click on my profile) with any questions you may have. Do you want me to rehash any of the questions Adrian failed to answer before? (Actually, he failed to answer most of that letter!) Do you have new questions? Just let me know!!

Have a good week!

Smith Campaign Used Bizarre Reporting Style

When I started this blog, I did so with the solid and moral promise that the truth would always be reported. No post would ever be purposely misleading, and if I found there was something that changed a report, that would be presented for all to see. It's a code I live by. It's one that I demand of Adrian Smith as I, and all who read this, work to hold him accountable.

I got a call today from Teresa Wickens at the North Platte Telegraph. She had started looking at the FEC Filings and had noticed that the amounts that Neal Smith was paid would then match the amounts paid out to in salaries. She gave me just that information so I could do my own researching. She said an article is running in her paper tomorrow and gave me the heads up. She did this, I believe, because I had originally approached her on this issue. I don't know what the contents of that article will be as she has to do her job as a journalist, but this gave me enough to start looking into the matter on my own.

I pulled up all the FEC quarterly expenditures for the Smith campaign and went over them with a fine tooth comb. What I saw caused me to then call the FEC and I got a further understanding of what I was seeing. I realized that Smith's campaign used a very confusing, misleading accounting process in their reporting, but one that is allowed. This most likely confused Open Secrets as well, as they didn't catch it either when they reported the disbursements for Smith's congressional campaign.

As an example, I direct you to the YEAR END 2006 REPORT that was filed. Scroll down until you see Neal Smith's first listing for "Payroll Processing". The amount is $2398.55. Right below his name you will see 3 of the staff listed as receiving a salary. On the far left-hand side under the payout amounts, you see the word MEMO. According to the FEC rep I spoke to, this means that the disbursements were paid from the last listing right above them. In this case, it was the payment to Neal Smith. Those salaries, when added, match Neal Smith's amount.

What this means is that the campaign used an usual practice of paying Neal Smith, and in turn, he paid the salaries, and those salaries have to also be documented in the filings.

As I said, I went through all the filings. This is what I found:

- Neal Smith received 4 payments for "Debt Repayment" totaling $22,055.54. In turn, the same amounts then went to staffers as "Salary Bonus Repayments".

Dan Huber, $13,233.30 on 7/6/2006
James Dukesherer, $2,756.95 on 12/14/2006
Dan Huber, $3,859.73 on 12/14/2006
Cory Siegfriend, $2,205.56 on 12/14/2006

- Neal Smith received 34 payments for "Payroll Processing" totalling $116,389.38. Of that, all but $2,977.40 went directly to staffers for salaries.

- The $2,977.40 can be found paid to Neal Smith for "Payroll" in the OCTOBER 2005 QUARTERLY REPORT. There are no pay outs to anyone as salaries and no other disbursements that are Memo'd. Either this is an accounting error, or Mr. Smith received that money.

There are some other things that I found out, though, while going blind looking at these forms the last few hours. Smith is listed as contributing to his campaign, but in all actuality, the amounts shown as his donations matched several of the In-Kind disbursements. This included the "In-Kind Mileage" claims. At first I thought those specifically were for money spent on fuel, but then I saw there were separate fuel reimbursements. I was wondering if he used the federal rate per mile traveled in his car and reported that as an in-kind contribution for his campaign? I think the rate last year was around $.41 per mile. This is all, of course, speculation, but it seems like these could be disingenuous "donations" that were claimed if that is what it is. He would have essentially claimed wear and tear on his car. Bottom line is that he paid for some of his own travel and it was attributed to his campaign as in-kind contributions.

But Smith's "donations" didn't cover most of the In-kind disbursements shown for him. For example, when I pulled them all together I found 13 listings for "In-Kind: Trailer Use" amounting to $200 each. (That was for that silly little trailer he pulled around everywhere he went.) I then found 13 "Debt Repayment" distributions to Smith, each also $200. All the other "In-kind" disbursements matched the rest of Smith's "Debt Repayment" disbursements. In other words, these were not in-kind donations by Smith, but rather they were reimbursements for expenses incurred on the campaign trail.

I looked at the Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Scott Kleeb filings as well. None of them used these strange accounting practices. Theirs were straight forward and pretty easy to read. The only other campaign to show a direct payment through the hands of an immediate relative was Fortenberry. Approximately $1400 went to Celeste Fortenberry, but almost all was for travel reimbursement.

Why Smith had his staffs payroll money go through his father's hands is beyond me. Everyone else just paid directly from the campaign. Lee Terry and Scott Kleeb both had accounting staff working for them that handled the books. Fortenberry may have also, but he also paid out just over $14,000 to various accounting firms for their bookkeeping services. Smith's treasurer was listed as Tyler Marshall.

So, in summary, I don't think there is much to Neal Smith distributions at this point. Of course, I'm no expert, and others who have experience at campaign accounting may find something that is of concern. If so, I encourage those individuals to contact me. In the mean time, I'm glad the questions came out, and that an answer was found. This time, Smith appears to be vindicated (although those in-kind distributions have me intrigued).

The sad thing is that this incident is just one incident of vindication. So far, Adrian Smith has not proven himself to be an honest, trustworthy representative working in the best interest of his constituents. He has shown repeatedly he works in his own best interest.....to do what will insure he will "be in the House for a good long time.....and stay there until retirement.”

I actually hope Adrian Smith and his staff, who seem pretty focused and worried about my blog (oh yes, I see the daily hits and hear from insiders), will finally stop their focus on their own self interests, and start focusing on what is REALLY right for Nebraska.....not what is preplanned in a GOP-sanctioned talking-points memo that puts party before the people.

Smith's Campaign Spending and New Robo Calls

John at Americablog posted an article at his site today after reading my article "Open Secrets on Adrian Smith".

The article, "Why did GOP Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE-03) pay his father $141,666 out of his campaign money?", asks a very valid question.

The FEC Electronic Filings show that disbursements to Neal Smith broke down as follows:

In-Kind: Birthday Invitations: $219.35
In-Kind: Flight for two: $497.58
In-Kind: Office Space: $2525.00
Debt Repayment: $22,055.54
Payroll Processing: $116, 389.38

Hopefully John will get an answer to his question.

UPDATE: 2 Nebraska Bloggers are also now covering this issue!!

New Nebraska Network: Did Adrian Smith's Family Cash-In on 2006 Campaign?

Thanks for the great report, Kyle!!!

UNO College Democrats: Adrian Smith: All in the Family

ANOTHER UPDATE: Yet another blog is picking up this story.

Swing State Project: NE-03: Adrian Smith Pays Father More Than $140K

----------------------------------------------------

Many in the Third District, myself included, may have found a message on their voice mail last night, or may have actually answered the phone (if you did, send me a message and just verify if you also received a robocall or if it was a live person).

At 7:21pm CST last night, there was a message from Adrian Smith, stating "I want to invite you to participate in a telephone town hall meeting to discuss the farm bill." He then goes on to say something about being our new congressman and wanting to make positive changes, but the money quote is this: "I want to know how to help you and your family because I care". He then gives the numbers to his (only) 2 offices in the 3rd District.

Has anyone ever heard of a member of Congress using robocalls to contact constituents? I sure haven't. Combine this expense with the expense used to create a special full-color mass mailing, and it makes one wonder what he is sacrificing to spend his budget on this. I received a call from someone who has worked as a congressional aide for some time, and they explained to me how this level of spending, as far as the mailing is concerned, is a bit unusual. Once his budget runs out, that's it. He can't get any more from someone else who is not using their full budget.

I'll be doing some further checking into this.

UPDATE: I received the following email from a reader:

The phone call I got last night was a recorded call from Adrian asking if I’d like to participate in a telephone ‘town meeting’ to discuss the farm bill – if I did, I was to push star one or something – so I did… curiosity got the best of me… and it was ‘live’ Adrian talking about his efforts on behalf of our district…yada yada yada and then he was taking listener questions – in order to get considered for listener question status, you were asked to push pound star something or other where you would be directed to one of his staffers and put onto the queue of questions – there were 3 live questions I heard – the first one had technical difficulties as Adrian couldn’t hear them and brought a chuckle to my heart… but it was allegedly a town meeting held via conference call.

Since my phone was tied up last night, my caller ID didn't pick up the information. However, my parents got the same call and message. Their caller ID said "Unknown Name, Unknown Number" for the call that came in. If anyone else got a phone number, let me know.

But this brings up questions:
1) How much would a district-wide "conference" call cost, even if they only did a few at a time? Who would have the capability of doing that?

2) Aren't members of Congress required to have their caller ID information available when they're are calling?

Look forward to hearing any thoughts on this.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This yet another message from a witness to the call:

I was going to give you more information on the "conference call". It lasted a little over an hour and he entertained 15 or so questions from those listening (supposedly +/- 200). All of the questions were prescreened by staff members.

I listened to most of the call while I was getting children put in bed--did not hear anything ground breaking or original. I wish I had been quicker I would have taped it for you.

He did plug the revenue based crop insurance at every opportunity and artfully dodged a listener's question pertaining to moving from corn based ethanol production to cellulose based ethanol.

Most of his answers had Club for Growth policies in them somewhere.

My husband says his answers were very generic and he almost seemed to be fishing for information about problems, rather than already having an understanding about them prior to the call. Issues that he should already be able to discuss without giving cookie cutter answers.

---------------------------------------

I've just received word that one of THE top blogs has also cited me on their front page.

Dailykos just mentioned "Smith Watch" in this posting: NE-Sen: Is Hagel retiring from Senate? .

I welcome each and every one of you!

Thanks to EVERYONE for their positive words of encouragement, and I am truly humbled by your gratitude and compliments. Lets all work together to find ways to hold our representatives in Congress accountable, even if it's one blog at a time!

Campaign Laughs

ADRIAN WAVES TO HIS SUPPORTERS

**Thanks to the original photographer who gave permission to post this photo!

UPDATE: I just got a plug of a lifetime. At this post at AMERICABLOG they promoted my site, and I've just seen 120 unique hits in less than 30 minutes.

WELCOME AMERICABLOG readers, THANK YOU John Aravosis, and THANK YOU to the person you sent the link. Be sure to email me and let me know who you are!!!

Open Secrets on Adrian Smith

If you haven't heard of the web site Open Secrets, you have missed out on an interesting resource. They take the FEC information and compile it on all the money facts swirling around in our political world.

They have gotten some of their information updated. I went to their Profile on Adrian Smith.

The first thing I found interesting was the fact that he exited his political campaign in debt. That's right: He reported having Cash on Hand in the amount of $16,456, but his outstanding Debts stood at $35,920.

When you click on the "Geographic Totals", they state the numbers are from the FEC's list of contributions over $200. I've looked at the FEC numbers, and these represent only the true individual contributions. They do not represent the donations from individuals that were directed through the Club for Growth. That number accounts for almost $235,000 in additional out-of-state contributions.

When you combine these two lists, you find something interesting as far as the top donating states. First, 59% of Adrian Smith's individual contributions came from outside of Nebraska. Compare that to his opponent, Scott Kleeb, who's out-of-state contributions were 56% of his total individual donations. So, percentage-wise, Kleeb actually had a greater share of his individual contributions from Nebraskans than Smith did. In dollar amounts, Smith only had about an $8,000 advantage.

Next, remember when Smith and his campaign would try to label Kleeb as being from the east coast and getting supported by New York? Let's look at the top 15 states, in order of amounts donated, for each candidate:

SCOTT KLEEB:
Nebraska
New York
California
Connecticut
Virginia
Washington DC
Illinois
Colorado
Arizona
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Florida
New Jersey
So. Dakota

ADRIAN SMITH:
Nebraska
New York
Florida
Texas
California
Illinois
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
So. Dakota
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Colorado
Ohio

Imagine that. For Smith, the next state to contribute the most to his campaign is New York. Just like his opponent.

The next interesting factoid is the "Personal Finances" link. Open Secrets obtained a copy of the financial disclosure form Smith had to submit as a candidate. It shows that his income in 2005 came from the following:

State of Nebraska - $12,000
Buyers Realty - $10,551

It also shows he got rent from his "My Other Garage Mini-Storage" between $5,000 to $15,000, and also from part-time rental of his Lincoln condo between $1,000 to $2,500. He's also got a loan on his mini-storage units for between $50,000 to $100,000.

This then takes me to the most interesting link on the site. The "Expenditures" list. This is what his campaign basically wrote checks on. A lot is easily found to be campaign related. Then there were the things listed that raise eyebrows.

1. $38,181 to Nancy Bocskor. She's a professional campaign fundraiser who has taught seminars at....get this....YALE UNIVERSITY!

2. $1,116 to Dogs 'R' Us, Richmond, VA. Okay, so a search says they sell hot dogs, italian sausages, trout, ribs, etc. That much money on that kind of fare...that's a lot of weiners to be swallowing.

3. $534,921 to Greener and Hook, Arlington, VA. Their motto is "Driving public opinion through Strategic Communications." Their a Republican communications firm that handles TV, Radio, and print.

4. $70,753 to Dan Huber, who was Adrian Smith's campaign manager. That's quite a paycheck.

5. $10,504 to Miss Negin Kordbacheh, Washington, DC. A search shows that this was listed as a "salary". Miss Kodbacheh has also been on the RNC payroll and has written articles for the Orange County Iranian-Americans. Don't know what capacity she had with the campaign though.

6. $22,848 for Adrian Smith. Did he actually get paid by his campaign? Then what with the over $10,000 attributed to being contributions by the candidate for his own campaign?

7. $141,666 to Neal Smith, Adrian's father. A look at the FEC forms say it's for payroll processing.

You can view the entire list for yourself and make up your own minds on this stuff.

House Actions 2/26/07 - 3/2/07

The House was adjourned for a week while members of Congress went back to their home districts. They got back into Washington this week.

There were 16 new roll call votes on bills before the House this week.

There were only 2 ceremonial bills presented for a vote, both of which passed unanimously:

H.CON.RES.47 - Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Medal of Honor Day to celebrate and honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor.
H.CON.RES.52 - Supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month.

There were two other bills focusing on procedural issues.

The first was H.R.755, "To require annual oral testimony before the Financial Services Committee of the Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to their efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting." This bill passed unanimously.

The second bill was H.R.884, "To provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes." This bill passed on a vote of 396-16-21, with 15 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against it. Smith voted for this bill.

The other votes were on debated issues.

H.R.556 - To ensure national security while promoting foreign investment and the creation and maintenance of jobs, to reform the process by which such investments are examined for any effect they may have on national security, to establish the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and for other purposes.

I think one of the most important aspects of this bill is this portion, as stated in the CRS Summary:

Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to study investments in the United States, especially investments in critical infrastructure and industries affecting national security by foreign governments or their agents which comply with any boycott of Israel or which do not ban foreign terrorist organizations.

This was a bi-partisan bill. During the debate, there were 6 amendments offered on the bill. Three amendments by Barney Frank (MA-4), Steve King (IA-5), and John Barrow (GA-12) were offered and passed by voice vote.

Three other amendments were offered by Michael McCall (TX-10), all of which failed on party-line roll call votes:

H.AMDT.18 - An amendment numbered 5 printed in the Congressional Record, to insert a new paragraph entitled Contents of Report Related to Barriers to Investment into the United States and specifies for inclusion in the report a detailed discussion of factors including the effective rate of taxation on entrepeneurs and businesess and other sources of capital in the U.S. as compared to other countries.

H.AMDT.19 - An amendment numbered 6 printed in the Congressional Record, to insert a new paragraph entitled Contents of Report Related to Barriers to Investment into the United States and specifies for inclusion in the report a detailed discussion of factors including the amount of burdensome regulation in the United States as compared to other countries that affect the number of filings, changes in the types of business sectors involved in filings, and changes in the number of investments originating from specific countries.

H.AMDT.20 - An amendment numbered 7 printed in the Congressional Record, to insert a new paragraph entitled Contents of Report Related to Barriers to Investment into the United States and specifies for inclusion in the report a detailed discussion of factors including trend information on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment resulting from covered transactions, that affect the number of filings, changes in the type of business sectors involved in filings, and changes in the number of investments originating from specific countries.

Essentially, these were all ideological amendments that wanted more reports and oversight, requiring information be gathered on how this all affected business taxation. It was a pro-business set of amendments that really had nothing to do with the national security purposes of the parent bill.

H.AMDT.18 FAILED on a vote of 198-228-12.
FOR: 196 Republicans, 2 Democrat
AGAINST: 1 Republican, 227 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 7 Democrats
Smith voted FOR the amendment.

H.AMDT.19 FAILED on a vote of 197-231-10.
FOR: 194 Republicans, 3 Democrats
AGAINST: 3 Republicans, 228 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted FOR the amendment.

H.AMDT.20 FAILED on a vote of 197-231-10
FOR: 195 Republicans, 2 Democrats
AGAINST: 2 Republicans, 229 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted FOR the amendment.

Next, the Republicans tried to offer a "Motion to Recommit with Instructions". They wanted to send the bill to the Finance Committee and see if they could get the three McCall amendments added that way. This could once again be seen as a partisan stall tactic.

The motion FAILED on a partisan vote of 193-229-11.
FOR: 193 Republicans
AGAINST: 3 Republicans, 226 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted FOR the motion to recommit.

The bill came up for a final vote then, which once again shows, as I stated, that the previous motion was a partisan stall tactic: It passed UNANIMOUSLY.

The next votes came on March 1.

H.RES.203 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

This once again fast tracks consideration of a bill.

The first vote was on "Ordering the Previous Question". Basically another vote so they can agree to vote. It Passed on a partisan vote of 228-197-8.
FOR: 228 Democrats
AGAINST: 197 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this motion.

Then vote came up on "Agreeing to the Resolution", which PASSED 230-195-8.
FOR: 1 Republican, 229 Democrats
AGAINST: 195 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats.
Smith voted AGAINST the resolution.

Next came the debate and consideration of the bill.

H.R.800 - To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

This is a pro-worker bill that supports the organizing of unions. While doing so, the employers are prevented from using intimidation tactics on employees, including termination from employment because of their union activities. It also lays out penalties for such tactics by employers.

There were 3 amendments offered by Republicans:

H.AMDT.21 (Sponsor: Steve King of Iowa) - An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 110-26 to add a section to the bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to discourage the practice of `salting'. This amendment will change the NLRA to ensure that a company's workers are employed for the sole benefit of that company.

This is self explanatory. It FAILED on a vote of 164-264-10.
FOR: 162 Republicans, 2 Democrats
AGAINST: 34 Republicans, 230 Democrats
NO VOTE: 6 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

H.AMDT.22 (Sponsor: Virginia Foxx of North Carolina) - An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 110-26 requires the National Labor Relations Board to promulgate standards and a model notice for an employee to put him- or herself on a `do not call or contact' list to avoid union solicitation.

Again, self explanatory. It FAILED on a vote of 173-256-9.
FOR: 171 Republicans, 2 Democrats
AGAINST: 26 Republicans, 230 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

H.AMDT.23 (Sponsor: Howard McKeon of California) - An amendment numbered 3 printed in House Report 110-26 in the Nature of a Substitute. This amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike the underlying text and insert in its place the text of H.R. 866, the Secret Ballot Protection Act. The amendment would prohibit the recognition of unions via card check, and provide that a union may only be recognized and certified after a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.

This would actually increase government intervention in support of business (big government mandate, anyone?). It FAILED on a vote of 173-256-9.
FOR: 172 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 26 Republicans, 230 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

Next, the Republicans made a "Motion to Recommit with Instructions" back to the Committee on Education and Labor (which had already reviewed the bill). They wanted to find a way to address illegal immigrants. The motion FAILED on a vote of 202-225-1-6.
FOR: 189 Republicans, 13 Democrats
AGAINST: 8 Republicans, 217 Democrats
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this motion.

The bill then came up for a final vote. It PASSED on a vote of 241-185-8.
FOR: 13 Republicans, 228 Democrats
AGAINST: 183 Republicans, 2 Democrats
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smith made no statements on the House Floor this week, at least according to the available data on the "Thomas" site.

A couple Science & Tech meeting transcripts have come up, but nothing indicating direct questioning by Smith. Again, these transcripts can take several weeks to be completed an made public. I will keep monitoring for Smith and his participation (or lack thereof).

---------------------------------------------------

Congratulations to Adrian Smith on introducing his 2nd bill as a Sponsor this week (the first being to Commend the UNL Volleyball Team). This is a bill that a Grand Island Independent article stated he would be sponsoring clear back in January.

H.R.1217 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit to certain concentrated animal feeding operations for the cost of complying with environmental protection regulations.

Senator Hagel submitted the Senate Version (S.285) back on January 12, 2007. Smith's version was just submitted to the House on February 27, 2007.

A couple points on this. First, this bill was not actually written by Smith. It's actually, word for word (with 2 minor updates on dates) the same exact bill introduced by Hagel in the Senate, which in turn is the same bill introduced in the 109th Congress by Senator Hagel (S.3596) and Congressman Tom Osborne (HR.5775).

This leads to my second point. Given this was already written, and it was reported he would be introducing it, why did it take him nearly 7 weeks to do so?

Smith didn't add his name on to any other bills this week as a cosponsor, so his total remains at 14. When taking into account the number of bills sponsored and cosponsored by every Freshman Representative in the House, Smith now ranks 48th out of 53. The top 10 go-getters are as follows:

(Name, Party, State, Sponsored, Cosponsored)

1. Philip Hare (D-IL) 2, 113
2. Stephen Cohen (D-TN) 4, 108
3. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) 1, 102
4. Keith Ellison (D-MN) 0, 76
5. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) 1, 66
6. Betty Sutton (D-OH) 1, 49
7. Kathy Castor (D-FL) 0, 46
8. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) 0, 44
9. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) 9, 32
10. Chris Carney (D-PA) 2, 39

----------------------------------------------------------

A couple more things to address from this week.

First, a question was asked about whether or not it was ever found out if the article Smith claimed was published in the North Platte Telegraph actually was published there. There is no record that it ever was or that anything like that was received. It does not appear to have been published elsewhere to the best of my knowledge or the best of my ability to search via the internet. Why Smith would claim it was is beyond me.

Second, a follow up on the mailing Smith did. I had a couple comments, and emails from people wondering if Smith followed protocol and House rules in sending it out.

I found the Member's Handbook as well as the Franking Manual. I reviewed them and one thing I found was this statement on page 16 of the Franking Manual, under "Examples of Nonfrankable Items":

-Materials (i.e. photos, logos, slogans) used in campaign literature as well as specific campaign pledges or promises are not frankable.

Also, on page 19 under the Picture guidelines, these statements are present:

-Except for an individual member photo as described above, a picture which includes the Member must relate to the content of the accompanying text, or have a cutline or caption which explains the official activity rather than merely labels the picture.

- Subject matter of such photos is limited to the official business, activities, and duties of a Member of Congress.

The photo of Smith in front of the Case IH combine does appear like it could be a campaign photo. There has been no official visit of note that I can find, so far, that indicates he made a recent visit to the Case New Holland plant in Grand Island, where the IH 8010 Combine is manufactured. I would compare it to the photos taken during Smith's campaign, but they made sure to take down the "joinadrian.com" site very quickly, and all the photos, documents, links, etc, are no longer available. I will be doing some further follow up with this.

It does appear they could use an outside contractor to create and print the documents sent out, and the Franking Commission have to approve it.

Now for the really interesting part. I had checked into this stuff but was curious as to who actually did the mass mailing (created, printed, etc), and what the actual cost per mailing was since it cost "less than a postage stamp".

I called Adrian Smith's office in Washington DC, and asked. I was transferred to Smith's Chief of Staff, Jeff Shapiro. I had simple questions:

-Who created the mailing?
-Who did the mass printing of the mailing?
-What was the actual cost per mailing if less than 39 cents?

Jeff's answer repeatedly was "Adrian Smith's office oversees the production of the mailing." Well, that didn't tell me anything, and I said as much. What did "oversee" mean? He would just repeat it, and say they have a budget. Okay, so who actually created it. Was it people on staff in the offices or was it an outside consultant? Again, no straight answer, just that they "oversee" things "many contributed to it". I told him I didn't understand why he couldn't give a straight answer, it really made no sense.

He then kept talking on and on about the Franking Commission and it's responsibilities, the rules, etc. I told him several times that had nothing to do with what I was asking. He kept referring to anyway, and that "you should check it out if you have any further questions." He also stated that I must not know the Franking Commission rules.

When I asked about the cost, he said the Franking Commission approved it. When I asked if he had the cost per copy, as someone had to figure it out before putting that statement on the form, he again referred me to the Franking Commission. I asked him if it was the commission that had figured that amount out. He didn't answer that, just said "the cost was less than a postage stamp." When I said, "are you trying to tell me you don't know what the amount is and who figured it", he just said, "I never said that."

When I tried to figure out who did the actual printing, if it was the government printing office or an outside entity, we went back to the "our office oversees that." Was it done in their office? "We oversee it".

At one point, early in the conversation, he started asking me what my name was and was I the press. Why did it matter? I told him I was a third district voter who got the mailing, and I just had these questions. When I tried to verify his name again, he pulled this childish response of "not until you tell me your name first." It was very bizarre. This is who's working on our behalf and who Adrian Smith relies on? Talk about disappointing! I did identify myself, told him I wrote the blog, and that several people had questioned the mailer.

Finally, in the end I was told I was holding him from a lunch appointment he was already 7 minutes late for. I told him to enjoy his lunch and don't bore them with all that political spin bullshit. No, I was not nice by that point.

I know the comment made this morning from the Washington DC IP address was from either Shapiro or someone that he works with. The words are too specific and exact a match to the conversation the day before. Sad that they had to post a comment anonymously on this site like that.

Here's my advice, since I know they are reading on a regular basis: In the future, be a straight shooter. Tell the truth. And if you don't actually know the answer to the question, just say so, and say "let me check into that for you." Instead, the conversation left me with the impression that there really was something you were trying to hide, even if the possibility exists that there wasn't.

Finally, the last thing to touch on. I received another message this morning from someone, after I replyed to the comments from DC and posted how I knew it was from DC. I didn't publish the comments, but will address them here instead. They stated that I was "hacking and invading people's privacy, and that it "really shows the true character and the depths to which this blog will go."

Time for a lesson on internet activities. When you go to the bottom of any page of my blog, you find a "Site Meter". Anyone can click on it, and it takes you to the site that provides this counter. It's a free service, one that anyone can use that has a web page and wants to see how many hits they get on a regular basis. That service then provides you with detailed analysis of those visiting the site. Specifically, you can see the service provider they use (the biggest one seems to be "charter.com"), the city/state they are from, information about their computer system (not sure how they figure that out!), the URL that they clicked from (but not always, especially if they are bookmarked or clicking from history on their computer), the number of page views, and what they clicked out on, if anything, that was linked on my page. If a person doesn't click out at all from a link on my site, the amount of time on the site will show as 0:00, as it can't calculate then when you left. But if you do click on something, that time can be calculated and provided to me. (I wont' even get into the Google Analytics that do a far more indepth analysis of the hits).

Here's a few examples of what I can see. First, after talking with Jeff yesterday, these were some of the hits I found:

(server, time, page views, time on)

senate.gov, 4:25:03pm, 1, 0:00
house.gov, 4:14:52pm, 10, 54:35
senate.gov, 4:05:29pm, 1, 0:00
house.gov, 2:08:08pm, 2, 0:13
house.gov, 1:51:12pm, 2, 2:00
senate.gov, 1:30:54pm, 2, 2:54

Another example is what was displayed right after my interview with Smith:

Domain Name - house.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address - 143.231.249.#
(Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP - Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
Distance : 1,135 miles
Language - English (United States)
Operating System - Microsoft WinXP
Browser - Internet Explorer 7.0
Javascript - version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 16 bits
Time of Visit - Feb 27 2007 11:56:07 am
Last Page View - Feb 27 2007 12:02:18 pm
Visit Length - 6 minutes 11 seconds
Page Views - 2
Referring URL - http://www.google.co...rtIndex=&startPage=1
Search Engine - google.com
Search Words - lisa hannah
Visit Entry Page - http://nethirddistri...and-other-stuff.html
Visit Exit Page - http://nethirddistri...-letter-arrives.html
Out Click
Time Zone - UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time - Feb 27 2007 12:56:07 pm
Visit Number - 1,793

And finally, to the person that sent that statement, I don't have a clue how to "hack" anything, but I do know that you were visiting from Burke, Virginia, a lobbiest firm, had 3 hits on my site today (no, it doesn't give a full IP address, so it protects you):

12.17.20.#, 01:25:17pm, 5, 9:45
12.17.20.#, 12:23:16pm, 3, 16:30
12.17.20.#, 10:47:04am, 7, 59:09

I'll open up the meter for a few days so anyone can click and see the list (it's rather fascinating). That way there is no more accusations of "hacking". It gives no names, so no one actually knows who is viewing the site. It will be an open record for a few days for any to see. Then it can no longer be used as a way to try and deflect from conversations that are uncomfortable for Adrian Smith and his staff.

Have a good weekend, everyone!

Smith's First Mass Mailing

If you're a voter in the Third District, you may have received something from Adrian Smith in the mail today. If not, you probably will get it soon.

I think we all have received our share of mailings from our elected representatives in Washington DC. I've actually found them informative in the past. They are usually thick newsletters with information on various bills and votes, and the individual politicians explaining their views on any of the issues. I think all our elected officials from both parties have done a good job in the past. Their mailings have never been overly pretentious or fancy, and most have strived in recent years to send their mailings on recycled paper.

Adrian went all out with his first one. It looks more like a piece of campaign literature. The content is also like something from a campaign - all fluff and little or no substance. Let's look at these page by page.

FRONT PAGE:


The thing that caught my eye is down toward the bottom on the left-hand side:


Wouldn't it be cheaper to use regular paper and an envelope? Most likely. And the headline: "See inside for news...." gets your hopes up, but then they get dashed.

PAGE 2:



How nice. The cows are a good touch.

PAGE 3:



The first thing he mentions is the farm bill. But when you actually read it, you find he doesn't really tell you anything. He just says he's "gathering feedback", and says to send him back the card.




As you can see, there's very little room to tell him anything. It's about 3x4 inches.

I next notice the picture. He's standing in front of a Case IH 8010 Combine, manufactured at the plant in Grand Island. I believe this is actually a picture taken while he was campaigning because I find nothing indicating he met with CNH employees during the last 4 months. Nice of him to plug Case IH. Their PAC did give him $5,000.

Under "Rural Economic Development", there's again really nothing of substance. But what got my attention was this line: "By serving on the House Science and Technology Committee, he has made a priority of expanding modern technology in our district...." The key word is "has". Actually, he's done very little on that committee so far. The transcripts on hearings that have started to get posted don't show him asking any questions. So what he "has" done is nothing. I take that back. He did put his name on the Meth Remediation bill.

The "Fiscal Responsibility" section is also really empty. But he does say he's "committed to restoring accountability to the budget, to control spending and eliminating waste." Too bad he voted against Title 4 of the House Rules that specifically addressed Pay Go legislation, and open accountability of earmarks (pork).

PAGE 4:



These are just the services that every member of Congress is expected to provide for their constituents. But I do have to say a couple things. First, about the "Education Assistance". He says he can help, but he has yet to really answer why he voted against a decrease the interest rates on student loans. Wouldn't that "help" families and students? Also, I note that under all the services, he uses fairly straight forward language, but under "Veterans Assistance" he embellishes his speech. He's "proud" to serve our "brave veterans". Good words. A way to get people feeling all warm inside about Smith. Of course, if I had a dollar for every time he said he was "proud" about anything during campaign interviews, or that Kearney debate I attended where he kept saying "...and I'm proud of..." in nearly every sentence, I'd be rich.

In the future, I hope Smith sends something more cost effective, that's on recycled paper, and that contains actual information rather than a campaign promotion of Smith trying to make himself appear more important than his actual actions have shown him to be so far. After all, we don't need our tax dollars wasted.

Farm Bill, Chapter 2

Yesterday, I attended the Farm Bill Forum sponsored and conducted by the University of Nebraska and Kansas State University. I went in not knowing if it would be an enjoyable day, since I have to admit that farm issues have not always been something I really get into. I found myself captivated the entire time.

The presentation was solid and very informative. I have to commend the instructors, all ag-econ experts in their own right, in the job that they did explaining all the elements that had been addressed in past, and what would be considered in the new farm bill.

The best moment, however, is when we entered a discussion period at the end. We got into smaller groups to discuss 3 questions regarding the feelings on the present safety net, conservation and energy issues. What I heard from the mouths of active, very knowledgeable farmers finally helped me to understand the "big picture".

This brings me to Adrian Smith's recent statements on the farm bill.

As I documented in my previous blog entry (Random Thoughts and Other Stuff), the North Platted Telegraph reported on one of Smith's appearances last week, where he talked about the farm bill. Let's recap what was stated at the end of the article:

Rotarian Mike Jacobson said this year is the first he can remember without a huge farm crisis facing producers.

“We have high corn prices, but are we going to have a lot of land in the hands of non-producers?” Jacobson said.

Jacobson noted that periods of higher prices tend to end with a crash, and told Smith that $1.55 bushel corn could come back.

Smith said crop insurance based on production should be changed to crop insurance based on revenue.

Rotarian Mike Jacobson asked Smith about dryland producers, prompting Smith to bring up the production based insurance, again.

“We need to get away from production based payments,” Smith said.

I wondered if Smith even knew what Jacobsen was talking about. Now my question has changed. Has Smith even listened to farmers and producers who, like Jacobsen, are voicing the very same questions and concerns?

Well, I heard them yesterday, and I hope Smith hears them, too. We had farmers from Adams County that were irrigaters. We also had farmers from Harlan County, and in the Republican River valley. They all agreed that Revenue-based payments would probably be the fairest. However, the ones to benefit would be the Adams County farmers that can irrigate regularly. The Harlan County farmers, however, were facing more and more water restrictions, and having to change their practices to dryland production. One stated that they had been told they could irrigate up to 12 inches this year, but the latest word coming from Heineman's office is that it could be only 3-5 inches.

Dryland farmers have to invest more into trying to produce a crop, but get a much smaller yield per acre. They all agreed that production-based payments would be a better benefit for the dryland producers.

These thoughts were consistent throughout the entire room once the groups broke and the ideas were shared with the instructors. Furthermore, they felt that there can't be a one-size-fits-all determination, but rather than it should be individual based.

Another thing that came through loud and clear, and I wasn't even looking for, was that there was little respect for Congressman Adrian Smith. At one point, when the instructors were answering a question on who in Washington would be receiving their final report, after naming the Senators, someone spoke up and said, "And who's that guy out from Scottbluff?" Everyone chuckled, and someone else said, "We don't talk about him." This fit in with what I had heard earlier. When I had brought up with my group of farmers the question asked by Jacobsen, and Smith's repeated answer about revenue-based payments, a couple shook their heads, and one said, "Yeah, well, we'd expect that from him."

In conclusion, I came away from the day with 2 things. First, I had a whole new understanding of the farm bill and it's complexities that I hadn't had before, and I always love it when I learn about something new. Knowledge is a good thing. Second, that these farmers, who appeared to well-represent the different farming issues in Nebraska, had little respect for Adrian Smith with regards to the farm bill.

Adrian Smith needs to get back to Nebraska and just LISTEN to the farmers of the third district. No preplanned speeches, and no preconceived ideas via the Club for Growth and major PAC sponsors or lobbying groups. So far he's talked a lot, but he's failed to actually hear what the farmers have to say. If he did, he may see that they have common sense ideas that would actually benefit the ag industry and this nation.