House Actions 4/23/07 - 4/27/07

The big vote this week was over the supplemental spending bill that included drought relief for farmers and ranchers, as well as additional emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan operations. President Bush has stated he will veto it this week.

H.RES.332 was first voted on to provide for the consideration of the vote on the final conference report. It passed on a party line vote (Democrats for, Republicans against).

HR 1591 was then passed on a vote of 218-208-2-5. I detailed this vote previously, and won’t spend time on it in this posting.

I will, however point out this New York Times article:

Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

The inspections ranged geographically from northern to southern Iraq and covered projects as varied as a maternity hospital, barracks for an Iraqi special forces unit and a power station for Baghdad International Airport.

At the airport, crucially important for the functioning of the country, inspectors found that while $11.8 million had been spent on new electrical generators, $8.6 million worth were no longer functioning.

At the maternity hospital, a rehabilitation project in the northern city of Erbil, an expensive incinerator for medical waste was padlocked — Iraqis at the hospital could not find the key when inspectors asked to see the equipment — and partly as a result, medical waste including syringes, used bandages and empty drug vials were clogging the sewage system and probably contaminating the water system.

The newly built water purification system was not functioning either.

Officials at the oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, said they had made an effort to sample different regions and various types of projects, but that they were constrained from taking a true random sample in part because many projects were in areas too unsafe to visit. So, they said, the initial set of eight projects — which cost a total of about $150 million — cannot be seen as a true statistical measure of the thousands of projects in the roughly $30 billion American rebuilding program.

But the officials said the initial findings raised serious new concerns about the effort.

You can go and read the full article. They must not have seen what Adrian saw in Iraq, when he gave his thumbs up to what great progress was being made.

There were several other votes this week to detail.


H.RES.330 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1332) to improve the access to capital programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

Another one of the bills that are setting up the rules of consideration on the floor. Another example of where Republicans, Adrian Smith among them, vote against their own interests. The bill passed on a party line vote (Democrats for, Republicans against). But, as you will see, the bill being considered has wide support. Which begs the ongoing question: Why does Adrian Smith, and the rest of his group, insist on voting to try and stop bills that have a great benefit and a high level of support?

H.R.1332 - To improve the access to capital programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

This bill would make changes to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 by:

(1) Directing the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to carry out a rural lending outreach program and a community express program for loans of $250,000 or less; (2) direct the Administrator to carry out a Medical Professionals in Designated Shortage Areas program and an Increased Veteran Participation program; (3) revise eligibility requirements for development company designation as a certified development company (CDC); (4) require certain CDCs to contract for the foreclosure and liquidation of defaulted small business loans; and (5) authorize SBA loans for projects which reduce energy consumption by at least ten percent.

Four amendments were offered and accepted by voice vote.

A motion was made to recommit to committee, with votes right along party lines, so the motion failed.

The bill then was PASSED on a vote of 380-45-7. All but 45 Republicans voted for this bill. Adrian Smith did, in the end, vote for passage.

Hence, the question as to why the consideration of the bill was fought in the first place.


H.RES.327 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 362) to authorize science scholarships for educating mathematics and science teachers, and for other purposes.

Again, another party line vote for consideration of the primary bill. Smith always joins the party.

H.R.362 - To authorize science scholarships for educating mathematics and science teachers, and for other purposes.

Also known as the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act, it expands and revises an existing scholarship program. The purpose of this is to continue encouraging students to pursue careers in science and math, especially teaching.

Three amendments were offered and passed by voice vote.

A motion was made to recommit for final consideration committee, with the motion passing unanimously.

Upon final consideration, the bill PASSED 389-22-21, with all but 22 Republicans voting for the bill. Adrian Smith voted FOR the passage.


H.RES.318 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 363) to authorize appropriations for basic research and research infrastructure in science and engineering, and for support of graduate fellowships, and for other purposes.

Again, passed on a party line vote. Those Republicans REALLY don’t want things moving forward!


H.R.363 - To authorize programs for support of the early career development of science and engineering researchers, and for support of graduate fellowships, and for other purposes.

This bill is a companion to HR 362 above.

Four amendments were offered. Three passed on a voice vote.

The fourth amendment, H.AMDT.109, was offered by Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, “to insert a new section providing for a new undergraduate scholarships program for science, technology, engineering and mathematics and known as US-STEM.”

As explained on the floor:

Our amendment would expand eligibility for National Science Foundation Early Career Awards to thousands of scientists and engineers previously deemed ineligible. These men and women have followed alternative career paths such as working part-time or in non-academic settings, or have taken a significant career break or other leave of absence.

In particular, our amendment would level the playing field for women scientists who have taken maternity leaves, and for all scientists and engineers who have taken internships, worked in industry, or who have pursued entrepreneurial efforts.

The amendment would also expand the scope of the Presidential Innovation Award to recognize and reward innovations that result in intellectual property that significantly enhances the economic competitiveness of the United States.

It’s a very good amendment, especially for those that don’t take a straight path to their chosen career. It gives them that chance they need.

The amendment PASSED 254-165-18:
FOR: 228 Democrats, 26 Republicans
AGAINST: 165 Republicans
NO VOTE: 7 Democrats, 11 Republicans
Adrian Smith voted AGAINST this amendment. In other words, he didn’t support giving women who took maturnity leave to get the help they need to get back on their chosen career path. What a guy!

A motion was made to recommit to committee, which passed with a mixed vote (75 Democrats and 189 Republicans voted FOR).

The bill then PASSED on a vote of 397-20-15, with only 20 Republicans voting against it. Smith voted FOR passage of the bill.


H.R.249 - To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

The CRS Summary is as follows:

Amends the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to: (1) prohibit the sale or transfer for commercial product processing of any free-roaming horse or burro on U.S. public lands; and (2) repeal the provisions permitting the sale of certain excess animals or their remains, and excluding from criminal fine or imprisonment a person who processes or permits the processing of such animals' remains.

An amendment was offered by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, H.AMDT.115, which was “to not either increase the Federal deficit or reduce the Federal surplus.”

Given there are other measures already in place in the law, this was redundant. The amendment FAILED on near party-line vote of 186-238-13. Smith voted FOR the amendment.

A motion to recommit to committee was called and FAILED on a vote of 182-234-16. There were 26 Democrats and 156 Republicans that voted for this motion, Smith among them.

The bill then PASSED on a vote of 277-137-18.
FOR: 195 Democrats, 82 Republicans
AGAINST: 24 Democrats, 113 Republicans
NO VOTE: 12 Democrats, 6 Republicans.
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

This is a rare time Smith voted correctly. I can even remember this subject coming up with people during the campaign. A lot of ranchers were calling and asking what Kleeb’s position was. I remember looking into the issue on my own and finding that universally, this was a topic that had bipartisan unity here in Nebraska. The program is a good one, and the reinstatement of the ban could cause problems. This is, however, only the first step.

Further reading:

FB: Keep BLM Authority To Sell Unadoptable Wild Horses


H.R.1434 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the "Rachel Carson Post Office Building".

Bills like this have been offered several times throughout the session so far. Almost all have passed without opposition of any kind, because they’re offered by members of Congress who’s area is affected.

This one, however, had opposition. I went through the debate transcript and could find no statement made as to why this would be opposed.

In the end it passed on a vote of 334-53-3-42. All the NO votes were Republican. Adrian Smith, at least, voted “Yes”.



The remaining votes were virtually unopposed on passage:

H.RES.179 - Expressing support for a National Foster Parents Day.
H.R.1402 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 320 South Lecanto Highway in Lecanto, Florida, as the "Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto Post Office Building".
H.RES.299 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should increase public awareness of child abuse and neglect and should continue to work with the States to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect through such programs as the Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families programs.
H.RES.289 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and encouraging prevention of sexual assault in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.
H.RES.119 - Supporting the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights Week in order to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States during such week and throughout the year.
H.CON.RES.7 - Calling on the League of Arab States and each Member State individually to acknowledge the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan and to step up their efforts to stop the genocide in Darfur.
H.R.1678 - To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other purposes.
H.R.493 - To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
H.RES.320 - Congratulating the University of Tennessee women's basketball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship.

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

I had heard that this Democratically controlled Congress had been making more progress than the congresses over the last few years, so I took a look at how many votes had been held by the end of April each year. This is what I found:

2007 - 269
2006 - 110
2005 - 150
2004 - 138
2003 - 154
2002 - 119
2001 - 89
2000 - 130
1999 - 104
1998 - 121

We’ve all heard that Adrian Smith thinks that this Congress is pushing things through too fast and furious, and that is one of the reasons he and his apologists give for his votes against many things. But guess how many votes were held when Republicans took control starting in 1995?

302 Votes!

When a party takes power after a long break away from the majority, I get the feeling this is pretty normal. And it’s a bad excuse to use for practicing partisan politics or voting against the interests of your constituents.

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

Smith made no floor statements, but did offer this “Extension of Remarks” to be placed in the House record:

SPEECH OF
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
OF NEBRASKA
IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, earlier this week, our Nation joined together to celebrate Earth Day and this Friday people around the world will celebrate Arbor Day, which as you may know originated in my home state of Nebraska.

This is an opportunity for us to take a look at the impact we each have on our environment.

I represent Nebraska's Third Congressional District, where agriculture is a way of life. I'm proud to say that farmers and ranchers were our country's first environmentalists, maintaining and improving the soil and natural resources to pass on to future generations.

Just as businesses make every effort to improve their services and products, the stewards of the land make use of modern technology and age-old techniques to protect their land and their stock.

We are fortunate to live in a time in which we understand the world around us as never before. We have access to technology to both protect the environment and to encourage innovation. We have the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue on how to confront our changing climate and other environmental concerns without hamstringing the agriculture industry.

This week, as we celebrate Earth Day and Arbor Day, let us appreciate the beauty of nature and renew our commitment to protect the environment for generations to come.

It’s a nice statement. Has no substance, of course. But coming from Adrian Smith it’s hypocrisy in action. Remember Smith’s article on global warming?

Of course, he does make sure to say that we should “engage” without “hamstringing”. Whatever that means. (Fill in your own thoughts here).

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

Smith did not submit any new bills as a sponsor this week. He did add his name on to 5 new bills as a cosponsor:

H.CON.RES.117 - Commemorating the 400th Anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown.
It was introduced on 4/18/2007.
Smith added his name on 4/24/07.

My husband, or course, had to point out the new National Geographic and it’s article on Jamestown. Apparently, European settlers brought nightcrawlers, which altered the ecosystem. I'll have to read it and see what he's talking about.

H.R.322 - To derive human pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not harm human embryos.

Also known as the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007. It’s an attempt to stop stem cell research by requiring alternate methods. It, of course, does take into account the fact that this type of research IS being pursued. This would actually limit much of the ongoing research.

The bill was introduced 1/9/07.
Smith added his name on 4/23/07.

H.R.643 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for collegiate housing and infrastructure grants.

Also knowns as the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act of 2007, it “amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow tax-exempt charitable or educational organizations to make collegiate housing and infrastructure improvement grants to certain tax-exempt social clubs (e.g., college fraternities and sororities) so long as all of the active members of such clubs are full-time students at the college or university with which such clubs are associated. Defines "collegiate housing and infrastructure grants" to include grants to provide, improve, operate, or maintain collegiate housing.”

It was introduced back on 1/23/07.
Smith added his name on 4/26/07.


H.R.1647 - To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the Medicaid Program.

Introduced on 3/22/07.
Smith added his name on 4/24/07.

H.R.2035 - To tailor the rural broadband program to better serve those living in rural areas.

This was just introduced on 4/25/2007, with Reps from several rural districts.


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

At this point, Smith is Sponsoring 3 bills, and Cosponsoring 35 bills.

Among all the Freshmen in Congress, he ranks 49 out of 53 as far as the total number of bills attached to.

Average: 77
Median: 66
Smith: 38

He’s got some catching up to do.

Latest Press Release - What did he do?

Smith's office just put out a press release that caught my eye pretty quickly. When wading through the technical stuff (which is just filler about the Platte River), these are the highlights:

Smith, House Natural Resources Committee Discuss Platte River Recovery Program

On Wednesday, Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) took part in a hearing of the Water and Power Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee on the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, H.R. 1462. At the hearing Smith introduced Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Director Ann Bleed, who testified in favor of the legislation.

....

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tom Udall (D-CO) and cosponsored by Smith, is designed to implement a multi-state cooperative approach to assist in the conservation and recovery of habitat for the Platte River's endangered and threatened species and to help prevent the need to list more species under the Endangered Species Act. The bill would also provide regulatory certainty to the cities and industries which rely on flows of the river.

"It is encouraging to see an agreement reached with regards to this longstanding issue. Agriculture is at the center of Nebraska's economy. Retiring cropland from irrigation raises concerns in the farming communities.

"It is vital that this plan, as enacted, is in the long-term interest of Nebraska agriculture. This step, if done correctly, needs to provide a degree of certainty to our farmers and ranchers who are being asked to give up a great deal of land and water to mitigate the problem," said Smith.

The title instantly makes on thing "wow, Adrian Smith was front in center on this very important hearing and this issue!" Okay.

The hearing actually took place on Thursday, April 26. These were the witnesses called before the Subcommittee:

Panel 1
- Jason Peltier, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.

*** Mr. Peltier will be accompanied by Mark Butler of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Great Plains Regional Director, Mike Ryan

Panel 2
- Alan Berryman, Assistant General Manager, Engineering Division Northern Colorado, Water Conservancy District, Berthoud, Colorado
- Ann Bleed, Executive Director, Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, Lincoln, Nebraska
- Ted Kowalski, Program Manager, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver, Colorado
- Dan Luecke, Platte River Issues Consultant to the National Wildlife Federation, Boulder, Colorado
- Mike Purcell, Director, Wyoming Water Development Commission, and Chairman of the Governance Committee, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Maybe the transcripts will eventually bear out more people testifying, but it's not usual for people who aren't on the agenda to testify. In the mean time, however, just taking what he wrote in his own press release, and what the committee websites shows, Smith ONLY introduced Ann Bleed. That's it.

HR 1462 was introduced back on March 9. Smith focuses on himself in this release, but says "Tom Udall" sponsored the bill. He's wrong. It's MARK Udall of Colorado (Tom Udall is a Santa Fe, New Mexico Democrat). He then says he cosponsors, but says nothing about all the others involved.

Here are all the people involved with this bill:

SPONSOR: Rep. Mark Udall (CO-2)
CO-SPONSORS: Rep. Barbara Cubin (WY), Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1), Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO-7), Rep. John Salazar (CO-3), Rep. Adrian Smith (NE-3), Rep. Lee Terry (NE-2).

And for your information, here is the CRS Summary of the bill:

Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and Pathfinder Modification Authorization Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation with the Governance Committee established under the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Cooperative Agreement, to: (1) participate in such Program; (2) carry out any projects or activities that are designated for implementation during the Program's first 13 years (First Increment); (3) acquire interests in land, water, and facilities from willing sellers; (4) transfer acquired interests; and (5) accept or provide grants.

Allows the Program to be modified before the completion of the First Increment if the Secretary and the states of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado determine that the modifications are consistent with program purposes. Terminates the Secretary's authority to implement the First Increment on September 30, 2020.

Authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, to: (1) modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir; and (2) enter one or more agreements with the state of Wyoming to implement the Pathfinder Modification Project. Authorizes the capacity of the Pathfinder Reservoir to be used for municipal, environmental, and other purposes, as described in Appendix F to the final settlement stipulation in Nebraska v. Wyoming.

So he gets the date wrong, the name of the sponsor wrong, ignores the other cosponsors, and submits it with a headline that makes it sound like he did more than just make an introduction of a witness.

I'm impressed!

More Budget Committee Transcripts

Three more Budget Committee Transcripts are available on the Goverment Printing Office's site.

January 18, 2007: BUDGETING FOR WAR COSTS

The witnesses for this hearing were:

- Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England
- Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr.,Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
- Under Secretary of Defense Tina W. Jonas (Comptroller)
- Steven M. Kosiak, Center on Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- Robert A. Sunshine, Congressional Budget Office

Smith is listed as present, and then his name comes up only once in the transcript of the hearing:

Mr. McGovern. My time is up. Thank you.
Admiral Giambastiani. Yes, sir.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Smith?

[No response.]

Chairman Spratt. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

These were people invited to come in and talk about the Defense Budget, and about the affects of ongoing war on the budgetary process. Smith said absolutely nothing. Was he even present through the whole thing? Why didn't he even respond?


February 6, 2007: THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET

The primary witness for this hearing was Robert J. Portman, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Portman is a former Ohio Congressman who was appointed by George Bush in 2006. You can go to Sourcewatch to read about his insider status with Bush, the White House, and his Jack Abrahoff connections.

Adrian Smith actually speaks up in this one:

Chairman Spratt. Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think we are starting to talk a little bit about what I am going to ask about, but it is the Farm Bill. And first of all, I do applaud your efforts to balance the budget certainly without raising taxes and I believe that the key to balancing our budget is growing our economy and promoting fiscal responsibility. Also, serving on the House Ag Committee I look forward to the Farm Bill discussions that we are about to have.

And we know that farm bills are written to cover current economic issues or economic times. And as you know, today's conditions are much different from those of the 2002 Farm Bill debate. And clearly in 2002 Congress did not anticipate the commodity prices we are experiencing today, and I say that proudly. But that said, within your projections to balance the budget by 2012 do you have room to accommodate fluctuations in policies which may be unexpected or unintended? That could be within the Farm Bill, that may be with some other policies. Do you have any instructive remarks as to what cautions you may urge as we look at various policies that may have some unintended consequences?

Mr. Portman. It is a great question. And I think Mr. Berry raised some of the same concerns. You know, how do we know what this program is going to look like going forward? We rely, as we always have, at least I am told we always have, on the USDA projections as to what prices are going to be. Right now, as you know, there is a high demand, low stocks for a lot of commodities including corn, of course, primarily because of corn being used more and more for energy. And our ethanol plants need more corn. There is substitution going on, as you know, so that a soybean farmer is now planting corn for that reason, and that raises the price of soybeans. So, the overall impact of this is that commodity prices are up and therefore our programs, like the Marketing Loan Program or the Counter-Cyclical Program, are paying out less. And as a result over the next five years and ten years based on the assumptions again that the Department of Agriculture is making about market conditions during that time period they think that our federal payments will continue to be relatively low.

So our proposal actually provides more funding rather than that baseline projection, and that is that $5 billion figure I talked about earlier. We will see how this all pans out, but when you look at, again, the demand right now side of the equation and you look at the potential for expanding exports, and I worked with Mr. Berry for instance on Turkey. They were blocking our rice exports. We worked together and opened up that market more. You know, there are so many opportunities out there from my previous job as trade representative, we should be doing much more exporting of our farm products. We already plant one out of every three acres for export. We can do more there. We have the most productive farmers in the world. And you see the energy demand will not be decreasing. I think it will increase based on all projections.

I think this is adequate, Mr. Smith, to provide what you were talking about, which is the fluctuation over the next five and ten years. But we will look forward to working with you on the Committee jurisdiction, the Ag Committee where you sit you
are going to have a powerful voice in that. And I know Secretary Johanns, again, will be talking about this in more detail when he comes before this Committee.

Mr. Smith. Would you say that the newly proposed farm policy might be more stable, more predictable budgetarily?

Mr. Portman. I think it will be. It will be more market based, too. In other words, by taking out some of the price and production factors in how the federal government provides its subsidy you get to more of a market based system. And I think that is good for the consumer, frankly, to Mr. Berry's question earlier. I also think that if you look at where some of this additional funding is going, which is to provide conservation, research, other programs some of which will provide farmers more of a sense that there is a safety net, in essence, I think
it could end up having the impact of being more predictable for farmers.

Again, I know this is a tough issue and there will be farmers in your state and elsewhere who will say that the 2002 bill was a good bill and they would like to continue it. I would just say to that, if you look at the baseline, it is going to happen with the 2002 bill, we are actually providing, based on our estimate as to what will happen, we are actually providing more not less funding in this budget to be able to leave room for you all to negotiate a good farm bill.

Mr. Smith. Thank you.

Short version? Smith asks if Portman believes future fluctuations are accounted for in trying to balance the budget, and if he thinks the Farm Bill will be more predictable. Intermixed with that is a lot of self-promotion (which, admittedly, all politicians do, and Smith loves it more than most), and ass-kissing between like-minded individuals.

You've gotta love Washington.


February 28, 2007: FISCAL CHALLENGES AND THE ECONOMY IN THE LONG TERM

The witness for this hearing was Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System.

Smith is listed as present, but then his name only comes up once in the course of the hearing:

Chairman Spratt. Mr. Smith from Nebraska.

[no response]Mr. Tiberi.

Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again....was he still there? Did he leave? Where was he, and why didn't he respond?

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

So let's recap. With this review, and the previous review of 3 other Budget transcriptions, that's 6 hearings accounted for so far. Of those 6 hearings, Smith asked questions in only ONE hearing. The others, 1 he was listed as not present when it came his turn, 1 he said he had no questions, 1 he was only listed as present, 2 he did not respond when asked if he had questions.

It's nice to know we've got such an active individual representing the 3rd District of Nebraska.

Smith Picks Party over the People

As expected, Adrian Smith joined with all but 2 of his fellow Republicans in the House to vote against HR 1591, the supplemental spending bill that was to fund our troops in Iraq. Smith joined the Republicans in sticking with their consistent talking points.

Smith, as usual, put out a press release, making sure to get his pre-determined statements and talking points out. Let’s look at some of what he said:

The bill, which exceeds President Bush's request for war and domestic relief spending by $21 billion, includes billions of dollars for items not requested by the administration.

I will take a close look at this bill and exactly what it contains, so let’s continue:

Our troops need funding. What they don't need is congressional micromanagement.

That’s the “magic word” among the Republicans right now: Micromanagment. But that’s completely misleading for the reality of what’s in the bill.

At the same time, our farmers and ranchers need this drought relief, and it is frustrating to see it attached to a bill that is destined to be vetoed.

The reason it’s going to be vetoed is because of partisanship and an inability for the party loyalist to say it’s time for change. He’s one of them. He can only blame himself for this one.

Artificial timelines, threatening to cut off funding, and calling the war 'lost' undermines our commanders on the ground and puts our military in a dangerous position.

As opposed to the dangerous position there in trying to manage a civil war among factions that have been warring for, in some cases, over 1000 years. And by voting against this bill, he voted against funding the troops.

Having recently been to Iraq, I know things are bad over there and we have a tough road ahead. But there is progress. We are starting to see the Iraqi government stepping up and taking responsibility for its own security and rule of law.

Adrian Smith thinks a guarded jaunt over now makes him all knowing in this issue. Go figure. And he misleads everyone, ignoring reality. Brad Ellworth reported that the judicial system is not functioning over there, as judges and lawyers are either killed or go into hiding. We heard of several members of the parliament walking out after the suicide bombing in the parliament building happened. We’ve seen some of the deadliest attacks in recent days.

And we’ve just found out that the Bush Administration, in there attempts to try and make it appear as if things are progressing with his surge, have actually once again been caught tinkering with their own numbers, as they exclude car bombs and resulting deaths from their statistics.

But an arbitrary timeline will not make our troops safer and will only encourage our enemies," Smith said.

In other words, Smith is prepared to keep troops their indefinitely. Keeping them there doesn't make them safer either. Does he think that when they do pull out, that the “enemies” won’t know? They can’t move that many people and that much equipment very quickly.

"This bill faces a certain veto. I had hoped Congressional leadership would put forth a clean supplemental for our troops and a separate drought relief package for our farmers and ranchers. By muddying the supplemental and tying drought relief to a dead-on-arrival measure this Congress is playing a risky game of chicken with our troops and denying our disaster relief from farmers and ranchers in need," Smith said.

You’re right, Mr. Smith...only it’s you and the Republicans that are playing chicken to maintain an ideology.



Here are some selected excerpts of statements made on the House Floor today. First, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi

With U.S. focus on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has intensified because of the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the absence of the fullest effort on our part there.

As Major General John Baptiste said, Here is the bottom line. Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and the Marine Corps. Our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission. End of quote, Major General John Baptiste.

Our troops have done everything that they have been asked to do and excellently. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they and their families are making. Instead of being honored as the heroes they are when they come home, our wounded veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to care for them. Preparation was not made.

….

The problems addressed in this bill are problems of the President's own making. From the start of the war, the President has failed to recognize and to request in his budget the funds needed by our troops serving in Iraq…..

This is the seventh emergency appropriations bill that Congress has had to pass to make up for the President's failure, seven emergencies. What is the surprise? Why aren't they understanding the cost of this war in lives and health, in reputation, in dollars, and the readiness of our military?

Furthermore, the President's budgets have failed to provide adequately for the medical needs of our troops wounded in Iraq and for other veterans. This bill supports our troops, honors our commitments to our veterans, rebuilds our military, and holds the Iraqi government accountable. It winds down the war by providing for the responsible redeployment of our combat forces based on benchmarks endorsed by the Iraqi government and by President Bush. They are his own benchmarks.

Oddly, though, even though they are the President's own benchmarks, holding the administration accountable to benchmarks has been criticized by the administration. They are criticizing their own benchmarks. Yet both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired Major General Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of training of Iraqi security forces, have noted the value of timelines in persuading Iraqis to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.

Secretary Gates noted, we are all familiar with this, it bears repeating, ``The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact ..... in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.''

General Eaton said, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.''

And some selected statements by Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer:

The Defense Department has concluded that the situation in Iraq is ``properly descriptive of a civil war.'' The Army Chief of Staff has issued warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall military readiness. And the Iraq Government has failed to meet political goals, such as reversing debaathification, drafting a plan for national reconciliation and disbanding militias, all of which are essential if we are to reach a political solution, as General Petraeus says is necessary.
….

General Petraeus: ``There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.''
….

….The question before the Members again today is this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the course with a failing policy? That is the question before this House tonight.

The answer, I think, is clear. After 4 years of rubber-stamping this administration's failed policy, not a service to the American people, this Congress must insist on accountability and a new direction. As the Speaker has said, more blank checks from this Congress would constitute an abdication of our responsibility and of our duty.

In short, this conference report protects our troops, requiring deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards. Mr. Murtha has not adopted these standards, nor has Mr. Obey, nor have any of us on this side of the aisle. These are Defense Department standards for training, acquiring equipment and armor, while allowing the President to waive those standards that are the Defense Department standards if, in his judgment, national security requires it. How much more responsible a position can we take?

The conference report holds the Iraqi Government accountable. I think that reflects the sentiments of the American people, who believe that the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility. What Secretary Gates said was if we do not have a consequence of not taking responsibility, they will not do it.

In fact, even if Mr. Maliki wants to do it, he will not be able to get the disparate factions in Iraq to do it, unless they feel a necessity to do it. We've seen that here in this Congress. That's democracy at work. So this is an assistance to the Iraqi Government to bring people together, because it says if you don't, there is a consequence. The American public supports that alternative.

And it includes a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces and refocuses, refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
……..

As retired General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004 recently stated, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi Government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister Maliki,'' as I have said, ``and the elected Government of Iraq.''

So what exactly did Adrian Smith vote against? Most of the bill went for military needs:

- $95.5 Billion to the Department of Defense. This was actually $4 Billion more than the President requested. Of that extra, $2 Billion further funded improvement of military readiness (replacing equipment and munitions), and $750 Million more went for operations in Afghanistan.

- It contained the amounts requested by the President for Base Realignment & Closure, as well as Military Construction.

- It provided $1.8 Billion to address Veterans Health issues: Improvements at Walter Reed, access to necessary services such as counseling, spinal cord research, traumatic brain injury research and treatment,

- $150 Billion ($87 Billion more than the President requested) for Nuclear Nonproliferation.

- $2.25 Billion to the Department of Homeland Security to further secure our borders, containers, and provide security grants to ports, transit systems, and states. President Bush requested no funding for these national security issues.

- $268 Million for the FBI and their ongoing work ($149.8 Million more than the President requested).

- $663 Million for planning and readiness regarding Pandemic Influenza.

- $5.7 Billion to the State Department ($100 Million more than requested by the President).

- $500 Million for International Food Aid ($150 Million more than requested).

- $6.9 Billion additional Gulf Coast recovery funds. This is $3.5 Billion more than the President requested, who only asked for FEMA funds. The additional funds would cover agricultural and fishery assistance, funding for the Army Corp of Engineers for New Orleans levees and pumps, money for state and local law enforcement needs in the region, additional small business disaster loans, and funding for the reestablishment of schools destroyed in the hurricans, as well as the extensive costs shouldered by colleges forced to close for more than 30 days.

- $3.5 Billion for Agriculture Assistance. Aid for farmers and ranchers affected by drought, and even funds set aside for the farmers and ranchers that were negatively affected by the recent spring freeze that killed off a lot of winter wheat, and destroyed other crops.

- $400 Million for the Low Income Heating Assistance program.

- $650 Million for necessary coverage of state children’s Medicaid.

- $500 Million to cover the upcoming wildfire season, needed with the drought continuing, but not planned for by the Bush Administration.

- $425 Million for securing rural schools.


In summary, of the money appropriated, $113.8 Billion is to provide emergency funding on the very requests that Bush requested. In addition, some of those funds, mostly military related, expanded on what Bush requested to further fund military readiness and provide further resources to start rebuilding our military. Of the remaining $10.4 Billion appropriated, over $4 Billion is to fund for the ongoing medical and mental health needs of our returning wounded, as well as to provide for Homeland Security issues. Overall, less than 1% of the bill could be considered funds going to “pork” projects.

The Bill itself did not limit the military in the ways Smith implies. Matter of fact, it lays out very specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, and actually leaves a lot of latitude for the President and the military. According to the CRS summary:

Prohibits funds from being used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified to the defense and appropriates committees at least 15 days in advance that such unit is fully mission capable. Allows the President to waive a finding of not fully mission capable, and to deploy such a unit, if the President finds in necessary for national security and details the particular reason(s) why the unit’s deployment is necessary.

Prohibits funds from being used to initiate, execute, or continue any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of any unit of the: (1) Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or (2) Marine Corps or Marine Corp Reserve beyond 210 days. Provides the same Presidential Waiver as above.

Prohibits funds from being used to initiate, execute, or continue any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom any unit of the: (1) Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days; or (2) Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days. Provides the same presidential waiver as above.

Outlines: (1) specified determinations, relating to actions of the government of Iraq, that must be made by the President to Congress on or before July 1, 2007; and (2) specified certifications, relating to actions of the government of Iraq, that must be made by the President to Congress on or before October 1, 2007.

Requires the Secretary of Defense, if the President determines that any of the conditions specified in clause (1) have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certifications required by clause (2) by the required date, to commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

Requires the Secretary of Defense, if the certifications required by clause (2) are made, to commence redeployment by March 1, 2008, and complete it within 180 days thereafter.

Makes funds immediately available to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment.

Prohibits the Secretary, after the redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

In other words, troops must not be deployed beyond the amount of time established by the military, unless deemed necessary. Troops already in Iraq can’t be kept beyond the normal deployment time, unless deemed necessary. Withdrawal will start in October 2007, unless certain benchmarks are being met by the Iraqi‘s. If they are being met, then withdrawal will start in March 2008. During all this, and at any time, troops will continue to have the ability to protect American citizens in the region, target and attack Al-Qaeda, and train Iraqi forces.

Bottom line…..they present the very guidelines the military uses, and the benchmarks the President wants to see. And it turns the focus back to Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, like it should have all along.

In the end, the ONLY THING that Adrian Smith and his partisan leaders really and truly have against this bill is the fact that the troops are set up to start coming home. That’s it. The body of the bill CLEARLY states that HOW that is done is completely in the hands of the military experts.

And while all this partisanship is reigning, two more soldiers from the 3rd District of Nebraska were killed this week. The communities of Hastings and Burwell are mourning their losses, with the rest of the 3rd District joining them.

In the mean time, I hope someday that Adrian Smith steps away from the partisan rhetoric. If not, and if he truly believes in his heart that his position on this issues is the only RIGHT position to take, maybe he needs to step up and go put on a uniform. After all, with the relaxing of the standards to try and keep recruitment levels up, a 36-year old man (that's how old Adrian Smith) can still enlist.

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

Additional reading: Senate passes troop exit bill

House Actions 4/16/07 - 4/20/07

The House returned to session this week after a 2 week break, and another chance to see how Adrian Smith is going to continue performing in his current position. We will start with the votes for the week.

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

This is the supplemental bill that has been all the talk in Washington. It's the bill where the House has put a deadline for progress in Iraq, while extending the funding for it contingent on the deadline. It also included earmarks, among them being funding for Walter Reed Hospital, and drought relief for farmers & ranchers.

The Senate version passed, and now the bills are going to conference to work out the differences. This vote was on a motion to instruct the conferees. The motion passed on a vote of 215-199-1-18.

Only 1 Republican voted for the motion, and 9 Democrats voted against the motion. Smith, of course, voted AGAINST.


H.R.1677 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance taxpayer protections and outreach.

This bill is also called the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2007. It does such things as allowing spouses to file individual business activities as sole proprieters instead of jointly; requires notification to taxpayers if it is discovered during an investigation that their identity may be stolen and if any charges are being filed on the person who used the identity; extends the time the IRS may return property wrongfully levied, and the time for bringing a civil lawsuit against the wrongful levy; allow IRA funds seized wrongly to be recontributed and the IRS to pay interest on the amounts seized; allows the IRS to use any mass communications form to publish unclaimed refund amounts; bans giving refunds to refund loan businesses suspected to be predatory; written notification to those who may be eligible for the earned income credit; alternative procedures with the sale of U.S. real property interest; allows IRS to provide information to the Federal Bureau of Prisons on inmates suspected of filing false returns (authority to be terminated after 12/31/2010), and requires reports to Congress on he implementation of such disclosures; and, increases the penalty for bad checks or money orders sent for payment of taxes.

This was a highly supported bill, which passed without incident on a vote of 407-7-19. Smith voted FOR.


H.RES.301 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1257) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation.

Self-explanatory. Two votes were taken. The first "on ordering the previous question", and the second "on agreeing to the resolution". Both votes were party line votes, with Smith voting AGAINST each motion.


H.R.1257 - To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation.

This bill is also known as the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act. The CRS Summary is as follows:

Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require a proxy, consent, or authorization for a shareholder meeting occurring on or after January 1, 2009, to permit a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation.

States that such shareholder vote shall not be binding on the board of directors, nor construed: (1) as overruling a board decision; (2) nor to create or imply additional fiduciary duty by such board; nor (3) to restrict or limit shareholder ability to make proposals for inclusion in proxy materials related to executive compensation.

Requires proxy solicitation material for a shareholder meeting occurring on or after January 1, 2009, concerning disposition of substantially all of an issuer's assets, to disclose compensation agreements or understandings with the issuer's, or acquiring issuer's, principal executive officers regarding any type of (golden parachute) compensation which: (1) relates to such disposition; and (2) has not been subject to a shareholder vote.

Provides that proxy solicitation material containing such executive compensation disclosures shall require a separate shareholder vote to approve such agreements or understandings.

States such a shareholder vote shall not be binding on the board of directors, nor construed: (1) as overruling a board decision; (2) nor to create or imply additional fiduciary duty by such board; nor (3) to restrict or limit shareholder ability to make proposals for inclusion in proxy materials related to executive compensation.

We've seen too many times where businesses will give obscene compensation packages to executives, while their workers get less, or the businesses even go bankrupt (hey, even Smith went into debt to pay bonuses on his campaign). I remember reading once about how, in the 1950's, executives made about 4 times what workers made. Today, that divide has grown to an average of over 400 times what workers make. This bill allows for shareholders to have a voice. Call it an oversight ability.

A total of 11 amendments were offered on this highly debated bill. Of those, 3 were passed on a voice vote, 1 was withdrawn, and the remaining amendments had roll call votes.

H.AMDT.92 , offered by Rep. Pete Sessions, "to add a requirement for disclosure of activities to influence votes." Sessions doesn't want the vote to be counted if the "shareholder has spent, directly or indirectly, more than a de minimis amount of money (as determined by the Commission) on activities to influence a vote of other shareholders, unless such shareholder discloses to the Commission....(A) the identity of all persons or entities engaged in such a campaign; (B) the activities engaged in to influence the vote; and (C) the amount of money expended on such a campaign.''

Rep. George Miller opposed this amendment, stating: "Corporate officers and leaders......tell you that they are there to take care of their shareholders....and the shareholders control the corporation. But when we get to executive pay, all of a sudden we find out they really don't want to have this discussion....and here we are presented with an amendment that is designed to close down those discussions, and it is certainly designed to close down those discussions among average shareholders.
I don't know when the shareholder gets the determination of whether or not they have spent a de minimis amount of money or not. I don't know for a retiree, for a pensioner or a worker of that corporation, if they spend $100 or $500, if they give to a campaign, is that a de minimis amount? Maybe to them it is not, but it may be to the campaign. I don't know when that determination is made so that they can then speak out or not speak out or have their vote counted. And when are they in jeopardy or not in jeopardy? I don't know. Are they responsible for the rest of the campaign if they simply decide to send money to a campaign and vote their vote because it is the only organization available when it is an organization if pensioners decide that they don't like the direction this company is going? So what you are really doing here is, you are trying to chill the speech and freeze the speech by putting them and holding them responsible for the disclosure that they may not have any control over."

The Amendment Failed on a vote of 177-222-39, almost a party-line vote. Smith voted FOR the amendment.


H.AMDT.93, offered by Rep. Scott Garrett, "to insert a new paragraph outlining conditions triggering a vote." Garrett doesn't want a vote to be triggered unless the executive compensation "exceeds by 10 percent or more the average compensation for comparable positions, (A) in companies within the issuer's industry; and (B) among companies with comparable total market capitalization, as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Commission.''

Rep. Scott spoke up in opposition of the amendment, stating: "On the surface of it, it sounds very nice and good. You recognize that there is a problem; you are just saying that it ought to be, let us just deal with that that is above 10 percent. But let us look at the wording of this amendment for a moment just to show the difficulty of it. It would allow shareholder votes on executive compensation packages but only if executive compensation at the company exceeds 10 percent or more the average compensation at companies within the same industry and among companies with comparable total market capitalization. A very complicated procedure at best. One of the first and most fundamental reasons why we oppose this amendment is because it is cleverly designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is basically to gut this bill because it is totally unenforceable.....Who determines this? And when you say, the Securities and Exchange Commission, they are not in power to do this."

The Amendment Failed on a vote of 155-244-39. All of the Democrats presented voted against, along with 23 Republicans. Smith voted FOR the Amendment.


H.AMDT.94, offered by Rep. John Campbell, "to add a new paragraph providing for a majority-elected board exemption." Campbell doesn't want the vote requirement to apply "to any issuer that requires the members of its board of directors to be elected by a majority of the votes cast in a shareholder election of such board.''

The debate gave little further information, other than this was maybe an issue that needed separated. At any rate, the Amendment Failed on a vote of 161-241-36. All but 2 Democrats and 22 Republicans voted against the Amendment. Smith voted FOR the Amendment.


H.AMDT.95, offered by Rep. Patrick McHenry, "to insert a new paragraph providing that a shareholder who is casting a permitted vote shall be required to disclose to beneficiaries whether such vote was cast to approve or disapprove compensation."

This Amendment would completely remove all protections of the shareholder's votes. The Amendment Failed on a vote of 164-236-38. All but one of the Democrats and 17 Republicans voted against this Amendment. Smith voted FOR the Amendment.


H.AMDT.101, offered by Rep. Tom Price, "to insert a complete new text consisting of a section inserting provisions for disclosure of executive compensation."

This would rewrite much of the original bill and limit the disclosure. The Amendment Failed on a vote of 148-257-33. All of the Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against it. Smith voted FOR the Amendment.


H.AMDT.102, Submitted by Rep. Adam Putnam, "to insert provisions regarding a deferred compensation exemption."

To remove pensions from consideration. The Amendment Failed on a vote of 160-240-38. All but one Democrat, and 23 Republicans, voted against this. Smith voted FOR the Amendment.


H.AMDT.103, offered by Rep. Tom Price, "to insert conditional implementation provisions."

Further conditions, which Failed on a vote of 162-242-34. All but 2 Democrats and 24 Republicans voted against it. Smith voted FOR the Amendment.

Basically, all the amendments would have resulted in weakening and limiting the primary purpose of the bill - to give shareholders a voice when it comes to these massive compensation packages that executives will get, even when they've left in disgrace. It's oversight. It's needed. Smith voted for corporate executives at each step.

The Bill was presented on a motion to recommit with instructions. This motion Failed on a party line vote. It then came up for a final vote.

HR 1257 passed on a vote of 269-134-30.
FOR: 55 Republicans, 214 Democrats
AGAINST: 129 Republicans, 5 Democrats
NO VOTE: 17 Republicans, 13 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.


H.R.1361 - To improve the disaster relief programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

Also known as the Relief for Entrepreneurs: Coordination of Objectives and Values for Effective Recovery Act of 2007 or RECOVER Act. Per the CRS Summary:

Amends the Small Business Act to, among other things: (1) direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive written disaster response plan, and to maintain a disaster reserve corps; (2) establish an Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance; (3) authorize SBA disaster loans for incidents of national significance; (4) direct the Administrator to carry out an Immediate Disaster Assistance program; (5) provide a revised disbursement process for SBA disaster loans; (6) provide enhanced lending authority for private lenders; (7) authorize SBA grants to small businesses located in disaster areas upon their certification that they will reestablish the business in the same area; and (8) require annual SBA reports on disaster assistance operations.

There were 3 Amendments offered: 1 passed by voice vote. The other 2 had roll call votes.

H.AMDT.85, offered by Rep. Steve Chabot, "to strike section 211, Hurricane Assistance Replacement Grant Program, from the bill."

Small Businesses hurt by Hurricanes would not have a chance at a grant to restart under this Amendment. It Failed on a vote of 178-246-14. All Democrats and 17 Republicans voted Against this bill. Smith voted FOR it.

Adrian Smith is always talking about small businesses needing breaks, but he didn't believe in that this time.

H.AMDT.86, offered by Rep. Steve Chabot, "to strike section 210 which authorizes the SBA to issue grants of up to $100,000 to small businesses located in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, but only if the business was denied a disaster loan by the SBA."

The Amendment Failed on a vote of 174-252-12. All but one Democrat and 23 Republicans voted Against this Amendment. Smith voted FOR it.

On a motion to recommit to the committees with Instructions, the motion failed 204-218-11. All Republicans and 8 Democrats had voted for the Motion.

The vote for passage then came up. It PASSED on a vote of 267-158-8.
FOR: 40 Republicans, 227 Democrats
AGAINST: 158 Republicans
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.


H.RES.317 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1905) 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 and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1906) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income for the preceding year in the case of individuals with adjusted gross income greater that $5 million.

On both the vote on "ordering the previous question" and "agreeing to the resolution", they passed but on party line votes.


H.R.1905 - 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.

Also known as the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. The DC residents don't have a voice through a vote in the House. As a result, their representation is limited to less than the rest of the country. Per the CRS Summary, this bill does the following:

Considers the District of Columbia a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.

Applies to the District in the same manner as it applies to a state the federal law providing for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and for apportionment of Representatives in Congress. Limits the District to one Member under any reapportionment of Members.

Modifies the formula regarding the number of presidential electors to subject it to the 23rd amendment to the Constitution in the case of the District.

Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437 Members.

Provides for a reapportionment of Members resulting from such increase.

Directs the Clerk of the House to: (1) certify to the Governor of each state the number of Representatives to which the state is entitled; and (2) identify to the Speaker of the House the state (other than the District of Columbia) entitled to one additional Representative.

The state involved would be Utah, which just barely missed getting another rep due to so many out on missionary trips during the last census.

A motion was made by Republicans to recommit to the Judiciary Committee. This motion FAILED on a straight party-line vote.

The bill then came up for a final vote. It PASSED on a vote of 241-177-1-14.
FOR: 22 Republicans, 219 Democrats
AGAINST: 171 Republicans, 6 Democrats
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 7 Republicans, 7 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

Republicans argued that they thought this bill was unconstitutional. But there is another consideration: if DC got a vote in the House, it would most likely be a Democrat doing it. The DC area is heavily Democratic.


H.R.1906 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income for the preceding year in the case of individuals with adjusted gross income greater than $5 million.

Per the CRS Summary:

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase (from 110% to 110.1%) the estimated tax payment safe harbor percentage for determining the amount of estimated tax payable by individual taxpayers whose adjusted gross income for the preceding taxable year exceeds $5 million.

This would pay for HR 1905 by essentially picking up a couple thousand dollars more each, in taxes from those that make more than $5 Million in a year. The bill PASSED on a vote of 216-203-14.
FOR: 3 Republicans, 213 Democrats
AGAINST: 189 Republicans 14 Democrats
NO VOTE: 9 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill, most likely because it gave such a huge tax increase to the very needy in this country!


H.R.1495 - To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

Also known as the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, this bill authorizes and provides for specified water resources development and conservation projects. The CRS Summary further explains:

Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to carry out specified projects for navigation, environmental restoration, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and flood damage reduction.

Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to prohibit the Secretary from: (1) soliciting contributions from nonfederal interests for water resources development project construction costs exceeding the assigned nonfederal share; or (2) conditioning federal participation on the receipt of such contributions.

Revises requirements for written project partnership agreements with nonfederal interests.

Revises or adds requirements, among other matters, for: (1) a schedule for consolidating federal, state, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and issuance of all project permits; (2) a coordinated project review process; (3) public access to water resource and related water quality data; (4) pre-construction assistance to state and local governments for remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of specified areas; (5) plans for regional management of sediment obtained in conjunction with projects; and (6) peer review of project studies by an independent panel of experts.

Modifies: (1) authorizations of specified water projects in various states; and (2) project authorizations regarding South Florida and the Everglades. Deauthorizes certain projects. Provides for specified land conveyances.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) conduct various studies, including one of drought conditions in the southwestern United States; (2) evaluate the structural integrity of flood damage reduction projects; (3) recommend a framework for long-term program of wetlands protection, conservation, and restoration in coastal Louisiana; and (4) undertake navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.

Establishes the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force.

There were 5 Amendments offered and passed on a voice vote. On a motion to recommit to the committees with instructions, the motion failed on a straight party-line vote.

The bill passed overwhelmingly on a vote of 394-25-14. Smith joined the winning side this time.

----------

There were the usual ceremonial bills this week that passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.196 - Supporting the goals and ideals of World Water Day.

H.CON.RES.100 - Condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society.

H.RES.273 - Supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month, and for other purposes.

H.RES.300 - Commending the achievements of the Rutgers University women's basketball team and applauding the character and integrity of their student-athletes.

H.RES.293 - Supporting the goals and ideals highlighted through National Volunteer Week.

H.CON.RES.76 - Honoring the 50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and its past contributions to space research, and looking forward to future accomplishments.

As a member of the House Science & Techology Committee, Smith made a statement on this bill during the floor debate There was nothing really to the statement, just stating the history of the IGY. Smith, however, did not have his name on the actual bill as a cosponsor even though it came through his committee.

H.RES.306 - Offering heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families regarding the horrific violence at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, and to the students, faculty, administration and staff and their families who have been deeply affected by the tragic events that occurred there.

On this bill, Smith was not present and did not vote. On the House record, he later stated:

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 221, due to a meeting with constituents on issues relating to my district, I was unable to cast the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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

Smith made a couple more statements on the floor this week. The first was his reflections on what taxation means to him as the tax deadline was reached for the year:

I also rise to express my concern that some tax policies that have been working over the past few years are in jeopardy. The tax relief packages offered by President Bush and certainly those in the House and Senate who supported tax relief have done good things, in fact, great things.........When it comes to the tax burden in general......I just think it is important that we reflect on this.

He then ends with mentioning something about how with tax cuts and 'increased revenue', we can then "provide for those who cannot provide for themselves."

Smith is in the clouds with those who still believe Republicans are great with money matters. He never says anything about how it's Republicans that have increased the National Debt by 60% through massive deficit spending over the last six years, after we had been in an era of surpluses. But Smith has to keep making anti-tax statements because people hate taxes and most of his biggest contributors (Club for Growth) want taxes eliminated that affect the well-off in this country. He also doesn't mention the fact that he is for policies that would effect "those who cannot provide for themselves" the most negatively. He pursues tax cuts for the rich, and cuts for those who have the most needs.

Smith then also joined in on a "Report Card" from the Republican Freshmen. Smith talked about being on the Budget Committee. (page 1, page 2)

He talks about how the Committee didn't address entitlements and "that is my concern". It's basically a rant full of complaints. Adrian doesn't say what he's going to do about what he thinks is wrong, however.

One statement is interesting - a dramatic tale:

My friends so very eloquently pointed out the estate tax, commonly called the death tax. I can't help but think back to when I was visiting a business in my district, actually the Nation's largest producers of natural wool yarn. I didn't prompt this discussion whatsoever. But the second generation owner, or manager in this case, of this company said, Adrian, one thing you can do in serving in Congress is to reform or repeal the death tax. It will devastate us. ``Devastate'' was her word.
Now, one might think that the Nation's largest producer of natural wool yarn would be big business, big corporations, all these big companies that people want to beat up on who provide jobs. No, this is a family-run operation with about 45 employees that just reinvested many dollars so they could double their output, so that they could take new customers because. Before they invested in some expansion, they couldn't take new customers. And yet our tax policies will penalize them.
And, quite honestly, I don't care how large an estate one might have, I think it is wrong, fundamentally wrong, and actually unconscionable that the government would lay claim to 55 percent of an estate. Some people say, well, these wealthy folks can plan around it. Some can. Boy, you had better plan your debt too, as so many folks cannot.

Adrian Smith misleads as usual. They wouldn't pay 55% on the entire estate. Also, debts and necessary expenses would be deducted to determine the estate value. Currenty if an estate is worth more than $2 Million after all deductions, then 46% is the tax on the funds AFTER the first $2 Million. So, if an estate is worth $2,100,000, the 46% tax is on the $100,000. And keep in mind, these are more often than not what are called "unrealized gains". That is, gains that were never ever taxed before.

Smith goes on, but it's clear he believes in the old "trickle down" philosophy.

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

Smith has not submitted any new bills as a sponsor this week. He added his name to 4 bills as a cosponsor:

H.R.111 - To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and the Revised Statutes of the United States to prohibit financial holding companies and national banks from engaging, directly or indirectly, in real estate brokerage or real estate management activities, and for other purposes.

Also known as the Community Choice in Real Estate Act, it prohibits financial holding companies and national banks from engaging, directly or indirectly, in real estate brokerage or real estate management activities. It was introduced clear back on 1/4/2007 and was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, with no progress since that time.

H.R.436 - To restrict any State from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services.

Also known as Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007, it prohibits states from imposing any new discriminatory tax on mobile services (cell phones), mobile services providers, or mobile services property for three years after enactment.

The bill was introduced back on 1/12/2007, referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, and then on 2/2/07 to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

H.R.743 - To make the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce permanent.

Also known as the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, it would make permanent the ban on State taxation of Internet access, and on muliple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.

This bill was introduced back on 1/31/07 and referred the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 3/1/07, it was put before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.


H.R.1261 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the indexing of certain assets for purposes of determining gain or loss.

This is an attempt to further decrease the capital gains tax. It was introduced back on 3/12007 and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.



I didn't take the time this week to look at the the other numbers for the Freshmen in Congress, but even if none of them had sponsored or cosponsored any new bills this week, Smith would still be toward the bottom of the list.

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

Smith showed up at the Grand Island Veterans Home this weekend.

"We had a brief discussion with someone from North Platte, say, wanting to go to Denver instead of Omaha -- they should have that option," Smith said. "That's within the confines of the current offerings within the VA -- just crossing district boundaries."

Smith said "it varies a little bit" whether veterans can do that now.

"So I think we need as much flexibility in the interest of veterans as possible," Smith said.

The concern has been raised for years in the sprawling Third District, where rural veterans can be five or more hours away from Nebraska's designated veterans health care facilities. In some cases, medical trips would be shorter into neighboring states.

Smith said he's looking into what he can do to make that flexibility happen.

That doesn't necessarily mean the introduction of legislation, which isn't always the first or best option to pursue, he said.

If there's anything I've learned about Smith, it's that he's good at talking and trying to sound important. But when he says he's "looking into what he can do", that's code for he got a question about specifics, and he had no clue what to say....so he just said he's looking into it.

Maybe someday he'll learn the meaning of "straight talk", but for now, he has yet to figure it out.

Until next time.......

First Quarter Campaign Fundraising Figures

Adrian Smith has managed to get out there and try to get some money coming into his reelection coffers. The who, what, where and how much are all very telling of who Adrian Smith is.

Smith pulled in $25,500 in individual contributions (with an addition $1,161 in small donations), and $68,700 in PAC money. In other words, 72% of his new money is coming from big political action committees, who contribute to candidates in the hopes that the more they give, the more likely the member of Congress will vote on issues the way they want him to vote. PAC money is influence.

Another interesting fact from all this money - just how much do you think actually came from the Third District of Nebraska?

Only $250, which came from a donor in Broken Bow. (The $1,161 will not have information on where it came from, but even if it all came from the 3rd, it would still be a very tiny amount compared to the amount raised).

First, a look at the individual contributions. The total represents only 29 Contributions. Of those, 16 appear to be the result of a fundraiser that took place in Omaha on 3/30/07, which mainly comprised of lawyers, bankers, and CEO's. Overall, the 29 contributors are as follows:

6 are Lawyers
3 are Lobbyists
2 are Bankers
10 are Executives or CEO's of businesses
3 are retired
3 no information was provided

Their were a total of 50 different PAC's to give Smith money. Of those, they represented the following areas:

3 Insurance
9 Bank or Credit Company
15 Agriculture
4 Medical
2 Builders/Contractors
1 Big oil

Plus telecommunications, trucking, transportation, political activists and other miscellaneous PAC's.

Some of the most notable contributions:

Nelnet - $2000
Sallie Mae - $1000
Wells Fargo - $1000
Citigroup - $1000
Conagra - $2000
Dean Foods - $2000
Auto Dealers Assoc - $2500
Exxon Mobil - $1000
National Beer Wholesalers - $1000
National Right to Work - $1000
Qwest - $3000
Walmart - $1000

Smith received an additional $5,514.77 from the Republican National Committee to cover some of his expenditures for the quarter.

We find that coming into 2007, Smith had only $16,457 on hand. His debts, however, totaled $35,920. In other words, he had more debt than money. With all that cash and assistance coming in from the National Republican Congressional Committee, Republican National Committee, and the Club for Growth, Smith ended up in debt. An interesting comparison is that his opponent did not end the campaign in debt, and did not have near the assistance from the big players like Smith did. Yet Smith went into debt. Smith, the man who talks about responsibility and who claims to be a fighter against government waste somehow managed to spend himself into debt in his campaign.

At the end of this First Quarter of 2007, Smith has $94,122 cash on hand, but there is still $29,016 in outstanding debt. But let's take a look at the debts:

Rebecca Weber, $2,756.95 , Salary Bonus
James Dukesherer, $2,756.95 , Salary Bonus
Cody Siegfried, $2,205.56 , Salary Bonus
Jamie T. Karl, $5,513.90 , Salary Bonus
Rob Czaplewski, $5,000.00 , Communication Consulting
Kurt Arganbright, $5,513.90 , Salary Bonus
M. Daniel Huber , $3,859.73 , Salary Bonus
Jeffrey A. Shapiro , $1,409.42 , Reimbursement

They paid off $112 to the Custer County Chief newspaper, and over $8,000 to Majority Communications Inc. But the interesting outstanding amounts are big bonuses that were paid out to the campaign staff. "Bonus" usually means beyond the normal salary. Why would Smith allow his campaign to be in debt for bonuses? But then, he's usually the first supporting the big corporations that, even if going bankrupt, will pay the CEO's millions in "bonuses" anyway. I guess I don't get that mentality.

Smith's list of Disbursements brings up new curiosities.

The list shows a total of $3,764.60 in Credit Card Payments, but the Memo'd items that are with those payments total up to $6,782.17. There are no other disbursements that could even be considered a payment to cover the over $3,000 difference, so there may be more debt than indicated.

There was a lot of activity for mailings and the further setting up of the March fundraiser. And within the postage, mailings, food for events, airfare, consulting fees, etc, is a total of $475 to the Capitol Hill Club for "meals".

First, let's talk about the Capitol Hill Club, known also as the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill:

A short distance from the U.S. Capitol stands the Capitol Hill Club, a refined and elegant environment for your business, political, and social activities.

Talk about exclusive, this is what the site says about the Membership Process:

The membership process can take up to four to six weeks. The candidate must submit the completed membership application with the applicable initiation fee. The candidate’s name and the names of the sponsors may be posted in the lobby for ten days. The candidate’s application will be presented to the Membership Committee and the Executive Committee for final approval. Upon approval, the Capitol Hill Club will issue an account number and the proper membership information to the new member.

There has GOT to be some major ass kissing going on in that place! But I digress.

If campaign funds were spent on meals there, then they should be somehow related to campaigning. The House Ethics Campaign Booklet has a couple entries about meals:

Payment of Certain Meal Expenses. Quite clearly, there are a number of circumstances in which the use of campaign funds to pay for a meal is permissible. Those circumstances include, for example, a meal that constitutes a bona fide campaign fund-raising event, and a meal incident to a bona fide meeting on campaign business. Consistent with the sections of this booklet addressed to campaign-funded travel, campaign funds may also be used to pay the meals expenses incurred when a Member or campaign worker is traveling on campaign business. Another instance in which it may be permissible to use campaign funds to pay meal expenses is where a Member has a social meal with constituents (other than personal friends or relatives of the Member) who are visiting Washington.

Outlays for meal expenses are another of the kinds of campaign outlays that can, in certain circumstances, raise questions of impermissible personal use of campaign funds. The applicability of the prohibition against personal use of campaign funds to the payment of such expenses is addressed in the next section of this booklet.

Expenditures for Meals. Circumstances in which campaign funds may be used to pay meal expenses are also addressed in the preceding section of this booklet. However, use of campaign funds to pay for any meal where the only individuals present are a Member and his or her personal friends or relatives inherently raises concerns of conversion of campaign funds to personal use. The only circumstance in which payment for such a meal with campaign funds may be permissible is if the other attendees actively work in the Member’s campaign, and if the meal is merely incident to a meeting having a clear, specific agenda of campaign business.

In order to be able to verify that there was a proper campaign purpose for meal outlays, the Standards Committee strongly advises that campaign committees maintain records that note both the individuals who were present at each meal, and the specific campaign or political purpose served by the outlay. Where the attendees include only friends or relatives, and the above-stated requirements for campaign payment are satisfied, the maintenance of specific, written records is essential. In these circumstances, the records should specifically describe the campaign agenda of the meal. As with campaign outlays for travel, where the outlays for meals are frequent and extensive, the need to maintain specific, written records is paramount.

The Capitol Hill Club has a long list of very specific rules. Among them are the following:

VI - Members shall be responsible for their guests, whom they introduce, and for all debts incurred by their guests.

XIV - No member shall carry on or transact any business or indulge in the practice of any profession in the Club at any time.

Does this mean that campaign business cannot be transacted at CHC? If not, who were the expenses for? Were they meals for campaign staff in DC on business? It would be interesting to find out who Smith is spending money on (himself?) and why at the CHC, and to determine if they were actually permissible expenses.

With all this new information, John at the UNO Democrats determined that Adrian Smith is showing weakness when it comes to campaign fundraising. He may be on to something. Let's look at the other two Congressman from Nebraska.

According to Jeff Fortenberry's first quarter report, he pulled in over $121,000 in Individual contributions. He has no debts and he took NO PAC MONEY.

Lee Terry's first quarter report states that he pulled in $81,550 in Individual contributions, and $66,130 in PAC funds.

And just for fun, Scott Kleeb's campaign account still has a balance of $63,730.12.

In other words, Smith has to rely on the out of state money from big PAC's to start filling his coffers again. And if he were to pay off his presently reported debts right now, he'd have a balance of $65,096.02. That's only $1,365.90 more than Kleeb's account, and Scott Kleeb did no fundraising of any kind!

Yep, with each new day comes yet more information that only continues to confirm that Adrian Smith is a bought and paid for politician with no leadership skills.

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

A couple loose ends to tie up here. First, Smith Announces $109 Million in FEMA Grants for Winter Storm Recovery Efforts. This is Smith taking a grandstand to make it appear like this was all because of his hard work. Of course, what he does is fail to mention the very leaders that got the ball rolling long before he did, which I documented in a posting in February.

It was, in fact, Governmor Heineman, Senator Nelson and Senator Hagel that came out immediately with their requests to the President for assistance, and they were the ones out immediately toured the damaged areas. It took Adrian Smith 2 months to finally take his tour, after the clean up and repair had already been going on for some time.


Also, local propagandist, and pro-war advocate Brian Bresnahan does his weekly article (subscription required) on how great things are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this time sings the praises of Adrian Smith to the point of nausea.

I've already covered that extensively, so no reason to rehash all that.

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

I will be getting together the week's activities in the House, but until then, remember to keep your thoughts and prayers with the families and friends of the victims at Virginia Tech. May God comfort them in their time of need.

Another Adrian Smith Robo Call

Adrian Smith called out on yet another robo call last night. He last did this on March 7.

I didn't get one of the calls, but my parents did. My mother said she wasn't there, and only got a voicemail message. It was left at 8:05PM, and the caller ID said "Unknown Name, Unknown Number".

The message was as follows:

Hi, this is Congressman Adrian Smith. Sorry I missed you. I wanted to invite you to participate in a telephone town hall meeting to discuss my recent trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the renewel of the Federal Farm Bill. As your new Congressman, I look forward to every opportunity I have to interact with my constituents. Although we missed each other, please let me know your thoughts on the Global War on Terror or the Farm Bill or any other issues by contacting my Scottsbluff Office at 308-633-6333, or my Grand Island office at 308-384-3900. Thanks and have a good day.

Several issues here. First, calling at 8PM at night. I know for a fact, from my campaign volunteer calling days, that most people started getting rather pissed after 8pm because that was when people started putting their kids to bed during a weeknight. Second, calling at this time of night and having the caller ID come up as "unknown" will result in fewer people picking up.

How much money is he spending on this stuff anyways? I can bet that if I were to write a letter to Adrian Smith and asked him how much money he spent each time he did one of these, I'd get silence.

These "town hall meetings" are safe for Smith. He doesn't have to show his face, he can have pre-planned talking points and empty responses, his staff can control who gets to ask questions, and what those questions will be by prescreening them. In the mean time, he gets to preach a lot of bull without being challenged. It's safe.

As before, ANYONE that had an opportunity to listen in on this charade, PLEASE send me your thoughts, your accounts, etc, either by posting in the comments section or sending me an email.

Different Views from Different Congressmen

As promised, a follow up on Adrian Smith’s jaunt over to Iraq and Afghanistan. During the trip, Adrian Smith was Joined by 5 other members of Congress: Gene Taylor (D-MS), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),

Rep. Gene Taylor does not appear to have made any public comments at this time. However, here are some articles that state the views of what the others observed:


REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA)

Congressman’s view on war unchanged after Iraq visit

A trip to the Middle East last week has solidified Gwinnett’s junior congressman’s position on the war in Iraq.

“Following the trip I have an even deeper appreciation for our citizenship and the awesome responsibility facing our troops and the families they leave behind,” Johnson said. “My position regarding Iraq is perhaps firmer and I am absolutely certain that we must set limits on funding and establish deadlines to extract our service personnel as soon as possible.”

“Morale is high, readiness is strong, and they are prepared to meet the challenge wherever they are deployed,” Johnson said of the troops. “It is clear that the situation in Iraq is a civil war that we cannot win and the Iraqi people must resolve. The situation in Afghanistan, however, began as a worthwhile endeavor wherein we can prevail. We need to complete the mission.”

Official Press Release

REP. VERN BUCHANAN (R-FL)

Rep. Vern Buchanan praises Iraqi troops, seeks 'progress'

U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Longboat Key, who just returned from an eight-day tour of Iraq and Afghanistan, reported high morale in U.S. troops there, but conceded the conflict was a long way from any kind of conclusion.

"Every day, it's more and more dangerous," Buchanan said today. "I did not feel secure anywhere outside the bases."

"I was very impressed with (Patraeus)," Buchanan said. "I think we need to give him enough time to see if he can get the thing moving in the right direction."

When asked how long he felt that should take, Buchanan said another six to nine months. He also said if progress was not seen in that time, the situation must be reassessed. “I personally want to see significant progress," Buchanan said.

"I thought the morale was very high," Buchanan said. "The troops are motivated. They're focused. They're professional."

In Afghanistan, Buchanan met with President Hamid Karzai. "He's pretty enthused," Buchanan said. "He appoints a lot of governors. But as Iraq has oil for their economy, Afghanistan has agriculture -- and most of that is poppies, which leads to heroin (production). That's one of the reasons we've had a presence there."

Although he believed American efforts in the region could possibly yield protection from further terrorism, Buchanan refuted a claim President Bush has made about America's disinterest in propping up the governments there.

"Make no doubt about it," Buchanan said. "What we're doing in (Iraq and Afghanistan) -- right, wrong or indifferent -- we are in nation building. In a big way."

Buchanan added that Americans are also building schools, roads and bridges in these countries, which should "help solidify somewhat the governments we've stood up in those regions."

Buchanan said his benchmarks for success in the region included the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan taking on more military responsibility for the protection of their people.

"We want to get our kids out of the front lines and put their folks out there," he said.

Buchanan shares thoughts on Mideast upon return

Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, a staunch supporter of Presidents Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, said it's difficult to feel safe in either country and his "stay-the-course stance" is not open-ended.

While still reluctant to set a withdrawal date for American troops, he said he would need to see more progress made in the next six to nine months. If progress isn't made, he said, "we need to look again at where we are and what we're going to do."

"You can't go anywhere, especially as an American, or you put your life at risk," he said.

It's too early to tell whether the troop surge is working or whether it will work, Buchanan said, but the soldiers and commanders there have high morale and are focused on winning the war.

As a Republican lawmaker, Buchanan wants to be a team player, but as an American he wants to see Iraq stabilized. The bottom line, he said, is some progress has been made, but not enough.

Buchanan said he knew it was a dangerous place to be, but he didn't realize how dangerous it is.

"If you leave the bases, it's tough," he said. "It's even more dangerous than reported."

Official Press Release

REP. BRAD ELLSWORTH (D-IN)

Situation in war-torn region is ‘dire,'

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Evansville) said the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are more dire than he could have realized.

Ellsworth said that although he was heartened by the determination and courage of U.S. military personnel, he was surprised at how difficult the conditions and the lack of infrastructure permeated through the two countries U.S. troops have occupied in response to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

There is a more hopeful situation in Afghanistan due to geographic conditions and the political leadership of leaders like President Hamid Karzai, who Ellsworth and five other delegates met with in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Despite some progress, the situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq is shockingly stressful on U.S. forces, Ellsworth said.

“Every time one of these guys eats a meal and then goes out on patrol, it is just so stressful on them to think ‘this may be my last meal',” he said.

Ellsworth ate with troops from the 8th Indiana Congressional District several times and said the overriding sentiment he got from them was an urge not to allow funding or support for troops to be reduced.

“They just said ‘don't leave us hanging here,'” said the congressman.

The most shocking aspect of the situation in Iraq is the total void in the country's legal system, said Ellsworth. He said he was told by U.S. generals that there is not one judge in the country who would hear a case, as they have all either been killed, gone into hiding or left the country.

“The biggest eye-opener for me was lack of the rule of law,” said Ellsworth. “Their justice system is just totally broken.”

The level of corruption within the two countries was also startling to Ellsworth.

He said kickbacks and bribes have been the norm for so many years in the war-torn countries that it has been difficult for U.S. officials to accomplish many projects.

Ellsworth was told a story of a local Afghani warlord who could not grasp the concept of a bridge-building project being completed in his area, without him getting a 20 percent under-the-table payment.

He said the poverty has everyone scrambling to make enough to feed their families, which has not allowed a cessation of the growth of poppy plants in Afghanistan. The plants are used to make heroin, making their cultivation the country's biggest cash crop.

The congressman said two soldiers from Northern Indiana were killed in different sections of Iraq during his visit and he heard one early-morning explosion while staying at Camp Freedom, but never got confirmation as to the source of the blast.

Ellsworth said the amount of unemployment and lack of industry are just some of the elements fueling the insurgency in both countries.

“How can you start from scratch and help these people help themselves, when your getting shelled and shot at?,” he asked.

Ellsworth returns from Iraq

“There is no correctional system. Once somebody is arrested, there is not the other two legs to the stool to make it stable. I don’t know how you overcome that, what the time frame would be to get that up and running,” Ellsworth said Monday in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

“That is part of the two legs of the stool that we have to decide if we are going to assemble,” Ellsworth said. “They are doing well in recruiting police and the training, but willingly conceded … that they don’t have the judges, the lawyers, both prosecution and defense attorneys, to hear any cases. You’ve got to have all of those, and a penal system.”

“This is not going to be won militarily, it is going to have to be when those countries decide they’re tired of killing each other and want peace in their country,” Ellsworth said. “There is no way we can fight our way into peace in the Middle East.

“There is nothing simple. We got in under a failed plan and we can’t afford to get out under a failed plan. If we knew what we were getting into, we weren’t telling about the power of the tribes in both countries and who has the power and how the power is delved out. It is a tough nut to crack and we haven’t cracked it yet,” Ellsworth said.

“It will take buy-in from their leaders. Not just the government leaders that we recognize … but down to the mayors, governors of the provinces and tribal leaders are going to have to buy in and take some responsibility for what is going on,” he said.

“With confidence I can say I don’t believe anybody in Congress wants to cut off a red cent that would leave our troops short of anything they need, equipment or weaponry, whatever it might be they need to do their job,” Ellsworth said.

Ellsworth said a House proposal would leave 50,000 troops, but take out combat troops.

“This is not a three-month or one-year or 18-month project. You could be looking at 10, 15 or 20 years,” he said, of some sort of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to help with rebuilding of schools, hospitals and restoring electrical power to the country.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY

Kern legislators tour global hot spots

McCarthy said after conversations with top U.S. military officials and local police leaders in Iraq he agrees with President Bush that the current surge in American military forces there is resulting in improvement in the situation.

"The surge isn't complete yet," he said. "I don't want to say it's working, but I see improvements."

Although this week's suicide bombing inside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad that killed two members of the Iraqi Parliament has been characterized as a setback, McCarthy drew a glimmer of hope from it.

"It was very dangerous that one got into the Green Zone with all the different checkpoints," he said. "But I also go with the concept that while they usually try to go after Americans, they killed a Sunni and a Shiite. What they're trying to do is stop the Iraqi government from being effective."

McCarthy said while members of his group wore flak jackets most of the time, there were no explosions or shots fired near them. But one of his most vivid memories was of the corkscrew dive that planes must make for security reasons to land at the Baghdad airport.

In the al-Qaida strongholds of Fallujah and Ramadi, McCarthy said a "corner has been turned" because some tribal leaders that once opposed the American-backed government have begun to support it.

He said a police official there told him, "We're not fighting al-Qaida. We're fighting Iran. It's Iran that's arming and training them."

Official Press Release

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

Further information was reported today that clearly shows the problems and the lack of stability in Afghanistan. This after Adrian Smith called it a “model” of what Iraq can be like, and thought farmers should just stop growing poppies (without understanding the “why”):

Taliban launch Afghan attacks; blasts kills nine

About 100 Taliban raided Afghan police posts and a district government headquarters northeast of Kabul on Tuesday, in the heaviest fighting in an area so close to the capital since 2001.

Earlier on Tuesday, a bomb blew up a U.N. vehicle in the city of Kandahar killing four Nepali contractors and an Afghan driver. The Taliban claimed responsibility. Separately, four children were killed in a blast at a school in the city of Herat.

The Taliban launched coordinated attacks in the rugged Tagab district of Kapisa province, 70 km (42 miles) from Kabul. Heavy fighting went on for hours and the government requested and received U.S. military support, the provincial governor said.

"The fighting is heavy and has been going on since the morning. U.S. air support is also involved," said the governor, Abdul Sattar Murad. Several Taliban had been killed, while one policeman was killed and four wounded, he said.

A U.S. military spokesman said there had been "activity" in the area but he had no details. Another foreign official said heavy clashes had broken out along a 10-km (6-mile) front…………

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

Six members of Congress go on the same trip. Adrian Smith and Kevin McCarthy, both Freshman Republicans who have been taken under the wings of the Republican Leadership (Blunt, Boehner, Cantor) repeat what they had been saying since before they went.

Brad Ellsworth, Hank Johnson, and Vern Buchanan appear to have come back with more realistic descriptions of what they observed. And Buchanan even voted against the supplemental bill with the timeline. They recognized the grave issues that our soldiers face everyday, that the Iraqi and Afghan people live with 24/7. Adrian Smith, however, gave a rather rosy assessment…..and didn’t realize that Afghanistan has no harbors or that Pakistan is not a primary country sending insurgents into Iraq.

After seeing Ellsworth, Johnson and Buchanan’s statements, I am embarrassed by Adrian Smith and his uneducated ramblings.

Indepth Analysis of Adrian Smith’s Iraq Statements

I apologize in advance for the length of this article, but it had to be done.

As previously reported, Adrian Smith went to Iraq this last week, and came back saying that he felt his position on the war was completely justified. Many reports have been provided in the last couple days, containing statements by Smith, many of which have been contradicted previously in the news.

First, I found an article I didn’t mention that was published in the Imperial Republican, that contained some statements on Iraq prior to Smith going over there on our tax dollars:

Congressman Adrian Smith makes rounds in the Third District

Smith said constituents continue to express concern over the war in Iraq. However, he condemned an effort to tie funding to a withdrawal date. "That's just nuts," he said.

The combat for the most part is over, he said. The big challenge now is to establish a civilization with strong self government.

He said the Bush administration must improve conditions in Iraq before the 2008 elections. However, he said it's about more than an election. "We're not going to sell out our troops for political reasons and purposes," he said.

Unfortunately, he said it's fashionable in some Congressional districts to be anti-war.

"I will say we need to have more unity and could be much more productive on the war on terrorism," he said.

This is how I read those statements: Smith acknowledges constituents are worried (the majority of Americans are disillusioned at this point), but what the majority favor - a time to withdraw - is just nuts in his opinion. Even though soldiers and civilians are dying at a much higher rate than even a year ago, Smith feels combat is pretty much over. He doesn’t think this should be a political issue, but he uses Iraq as a political issue (how can it not be when the politicians are the ones in control as our representatives?), and then insults everyone that wants this brought to an end by saying it’s “fashionable to be anti-war”. He wants unity, but he wants it to be whatever Bush wants. “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us”. Well, it was so “fashionable”, Adrian Smith, that Republicans lost the majority and Iraq was the main reason that Democrats got the reigns. The majority of Americans want this over, feel it was a mistake, and that is what the Majority Party is doing: Representing that “fashionable” beliefs of the American people.

As I said, many articles were written about Yo Adrian’s trip to Iraq. Instead of trying to comment on each (as many are repeats), I’ll provide the individual links, and then just comment on particular statements I observed. You will be able to find the pertinent statements in any one of those links:

KETV: After Trip, Smith Confident In Iraq, Afghanistan Progress

GI Independent: Smith confident in Middle East's progress thus far

North Platte Telegraph: Smith visits Iraq

KNEB: Smith Says Trip To Iraq & Afghanistan Confirms His Position

Lincoln Journal-Start: After trip, Smith confident in Iraq, Afghanistan progress

Omaha World Herald: Lawmaker says Iraq showing progress

Smith didn’t go alone.

Making the trip along with Smith were Rep. Gene Taylor (MO), and fellow freshmen representatives Kevin McCarthy (CA), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Hank Johnson (GA), Vern Buchanan (FL).

For the record, Taylor, Ellsworth, and Johnson are Democrats. Taylor voted against the supplemental spending bill, the other 2 voted for it. McCarthy and Buchanan are Republicans that voted against the bill. None have released any comments on their trip yet, with a couple saying they want to think about what the witnessed before making any hasty statements. I get the feeling Smith already knew what he wanted to say before he ever even went on the trip in the first place.

President Bush has said he will veto the bill to fund the war because of its timelines. Bush said he wants Congress to pass the funding bill with no timelines attached.

Smith supports this. As a result, because of his and President Bush’s desire to “stay the course”, and refusal to consider that there are other options that should be looked at, the result will be to NOT fund the troops, whereas signing the bill WILL fund the troops. So his position will actually hurt the troops more at this point, and they would have to leave even sooner than the timeline.

He probably never thought of that.

The group was not around for the deadly bombing of the Iraqi Parliament dining hall. Smith said the continuing violence in Iraq is disconcerting.

Compare this to his pre-travel statement I showed above - that combat was basically over. Part of me had really hoped he and his group had witnessed the aftermath of an attack, to see first hand what is really happening over there on a daily basis. But it’s good to know that he was knocked somewhat off kilter, even if it didn’t result in his changing his talking points.

Smith was asked whether it might be possible for U.S. troops to still be in Iraq five or 10 years from now. He did not give an estimate in terms of years.

That’s because he has no clue. And in this situation, "indefinitely" cannot be an option, especially in a region that does not want us there.

He said one Iraqi expressed hope that Iraq would eventually have the same kind of relationship with the United States that modern-day Germany and Japan have. Smith said the Iraqi did not want his country to be like Vietnam.
…….

He said he was told al-Qaida in Iraq has "really overreached" in their attempts to divide U.S. interests from Iraqi interests. As a result, Smith believes some Iraqis are drawing closer to the U.S.
……….

If U.S. troops were withdrawn before Iraq’s government and military forces were ready, Smith said, the subsequent chaos and violence would force a U.S. return.

This contradicts the Iraqi people themselves. During this war, the State Department and the British Government have regulary commissioned polls of the Iraqi people to assess where they are standing on the ongoing presence of foreign troops.

This is what the British Report had to say:

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.

The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".

Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy.

He said: "This clearly states that the Government's hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution.

"I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, 'what are we doing there?' "

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
• 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water
• 47 per cent never have enough electricity
• 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works
• 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

The State Departments report was revealed to the Washington Post last fall, which reported the following:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

"Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq," he said.

Recent polls show many Iraqis in nearly every part of the country disagree.

"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report, titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas." The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July.

The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal. Eight-five percent of Sunnis in that poll supported an immediate withdrawal, a number virtually unchanged in the past two years, except for the two months after the Samarra bombing, when the number fell to about 70 percent, the poll director said.

"The very fact that there is such a low support for American forces has to do with the American failure to do basically anything for Iraqis," said Mansoor Moaddel, a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who commissioned a poll earlier this year that also found widespread support for a withdrawal. "It's part of human nature. People respect authority and power. But the U.S. so far has been unable to establish any real authority."

The most common theory heard on the streets of Baghdad is that the American
military is creating a civil war to create an excuse to keep its forces here.

"Do you really think it's possible that America -- the greatest country in the world -- cannot manage a small country like this?" Mohammad Ali, 42, an unemployed construction worker, said as he sat in his friend's electronics shop on a recent afternoon. "No! They have not made any mistakes. They brought people here to destroy Iraq, not to build Iraq."

As he drew on a cigarette and two other men in the store nodded in agreement, Ali said the U.S. government was purposely depriving the Iraqi people of electricity, water, gasoline and security, to name just some of the things that most people in this country often lack.

"They could fix everything in one hour if they wanted!" he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis.

Mohammed Kadhem al-Dulaimi, 54, a Sunni Arab who used to be a professional soccer player, said he thought the United States was creating chaos in the country as a pretext to stay in Iraq as long as it has stayed in Germany.

"All bad things that are happening in Iraq are just because of the Americans," he said, sipping a tiny cup of sweet tea in a cafe. "When should they leave? As soon as possible. Every Iraqi will tell you this."

Interestingly enough, as you read along in the WP article, it’s the Sunni’s (who once supported Saddam) who are wanting the US forces to stay because they fear a genocide by Shiites. It’s the old tribal warring factions going at each other. The article continues:

In a barbershop in the capital's Karrada district Tuesday afternoon, a group of men discussed some of the paradoxical Iraqi opinions of coalition troops. They recognized that the departure of U.S.-led forces could trigger more violence, and yet they harbored deep-rooted anger toward the Americans.

Sitting in a neon-orange chair as he waited for a haircut, Firas Adnan, a 27-year-old music student, said: "I really don't know what I want. If the Americans leave right now, there is going to be a massacre in Iraq. But if they don't leave, there will be more problems. From my point of view, though, it would be better for them to go out today than tomorrow."

He paused for a moment, then said, "We just want to go back and live like we did before."

A book was recently published by Ali A. Allawi, called “The Occupation of Iraq”. In it, Allawi “Rips the Incompetent US Occupation”. Allawi has working in the new government, and is a cousin the 2004 Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Please take the time to read the full article:

In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country -- a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."

"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.

First came the "monumental ignorance" of those in Washington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.

Smith talks about the troops:

Smith said his conversations convinced him that commanders and troops feel what they need is the flexibility to do their jobs.

"My overall impression is that morale is fairly high," Smith said.

The Military Times commissioned a poll of the troops in late 2006. The results? They found that “More troops are unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq”. You can read it all, but here are the highlights:

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

- In 2004, 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

- Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. In 2004, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war.

- In this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

- A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

- Approval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. But that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004.

- In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

- While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced. The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion.

Morale among the troops may be high when it comes to them thinking about their fellow soldiers and the job they must do day in and day out. But those poll numbers of the military show a declining support for this effort, and that is a sign of lowering morale. Soldiers losing respect for their leaders is not a good thing. And they are the ones most affected by the President’s policies.

Things are not going to get any better. The recent announcement that the troops deployments would be extended, and that the time between deployments would be shortened to just one year, is also bound to have a negative affect. Many were not surprised by this, and will do their duty. But putting them in that position is not fair to them or their families.

Smith also claims:

He said most troops indicated they have enough body armor. He said unarmored Humvees were a concern.

Humvees are now armored, but he has heard the Humvee frames are not strong enough to support the armor. He said that problem also is being addressed.

The fact is that the National Guard troops being sent over are already being shorted much of the equipment they need just to do their jobs over here, let alone over in Iraq. Then, recruiting goals are being met mainly by lowering standards of who can or can’t enlist.

These are signs of a weakening military. But those are not my words. These articles discuss all these issues:

Breaking the Army

"The active army is about broken," former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also served as chairman of the Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush 15 years ago, told Time magazine this week, while another highly decorated retired general who just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan described the situation in even more dire terms.

"The truth is, the U.S. Army is in serious trouble and any recovery will be years in the making and, as a result, the country is in a position of strategic peril," ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, former head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the National Journal, elaborating on a much-cited memo he had written for his colleagues at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

"My bottom line is that the Army is unraveling, and if we don't expend significant national energy to reverse that trend, sometime in the next two years we will break the Army just like we did during Vietnam," he added.

"Pressed by the demands of two wars, plus mandates to expand, reorganize, and modernize, the Army is nearing its breaking point," according to the Journal, which also ran a companion article on how much the service has been forced to lower its mental, physical and moral standards to meet recruitment targets.

Some 15 percent of Army recruits last year were granted "waivers" from the Army's minimum standards -- about half of those were "moral waivers"; that is, they were permitted to enter the service despite prior criminal records. Only 82 percent of recruits had a high school diploma or its equivalent, below the Army's benchmark of 90 percent and the lowest rate since 1981, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

"On the equipment side of the equation, the Army is pretty much broken," Tom McNaugher, an expert at the RAND Corporation, told the Journal.

Stars and Stripes: Some U.S. troops not surprised by longer deployment

The Pentagon’s Wednesday announcement of longer combat tours for active-duty soldiers has drawn mixed reaction from troops throughout Europe heading downrange.

For some members of the 1st Armored Division Headquarters, scheduled for Iraq in the late summer, the news that deployments have changed from 12 to 15 months held little surprise.

“It gives you time to prepare to stay that long,” said Hodge, whose husband is also in the military. “It gives your family time to prepare for it.”

That’s little consolation to some families, who were hoping for the best.

“My wife absolutely does not want to hear about it,” said Pvt. Curtis Huselton…

Spouses of soldiers in the 596th Maintenance Company are fretting over the new policy. Their better-halves deployed last September, and the hope was that the Darmstadt-based unit would return a year later.

“The families are the ones who suffer,” said Army Staff Sgt. Ivan Figueroa, the company’s rear-detachment liaison for family readiness groups. “This morning, I got a lot of calls.”

Army Times: Military readiness down, top general says

Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won’t be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation’s top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

The report is classified, but on Monday, senior defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace’s review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its war-fighting abilities, it “may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels.”

Christian Science Monitor: Iraq duty stretching National Guard

While Guard officials maintain their units are willing and able to help support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, critics are concerned that equipment shortages and the time needed for training and rest at home will strain the Guard's ability to respond to crises domestically.

The likely deployment of more Guard troops to Iraq adds another dimension to a picture of a Pentagon already scrambling to staff a war over which Americans are increasingly divided. Last week, Defense officials announced that two Army units with less than one year of "dwell time" at home would be required to leave for Iraq in the next few months.

Yet the Guard is dealing with its own specific issues. The National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, led by Army Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, oversees each state's Guard unit and commits to state governors that at least half of the total force of 350,000 guardsmen are available at any time to respond to a national disaster. The Guard more than meets those requirements, says one Defense official.

However, it's contending with equipment shortages that are leaving 88 percent of units with less than half the equipment required to perform missions at home, according to a commission mandated by Congress to look at such issues.

ABC: National Guard Dealing with Equipment Shortages

Smith then made this statement about why he went over:

“We are debating the war in Iraq,” he said. “I see the military budget and first-hand knowledge is the best.”

By that way of thinking, he should be involved with every committee in the House: Appropriations, Armed Services, Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, House Administration, Judiciary, Natural Resources, Oversight and Government Reform, Rules, Small Business, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans’ Affairs, Ways and Means…….after all, they’re all a part of the Budget, which is being debated, and he should get first hand knowledge of how they all work so he can take a stance, right? Maybe every House member needs to get involved with every committee’s responsibilities personally and directly. But then we’d have chaos.

Or maybe there’s a reason there are committee assignments.

Questioned about reports of mismanagement of money to be used for reconstruction and infrastructure, Smith said any time there is the amount of money spent like there has been in Iraq, “you have to be ever mindful of fraud, waste and abuse.”

Smith also parroted the line about all the great progress in Iraq. But reports even from our own government, and from those studying the situation, aren’t so good, even though we'd all love it to be great.

In this report, “This medieval republic is suffering more now than it did under Saddam”, it summarizes a report just completed by the Brookings Institute:

Category after category shows that Iraq is not only lagging behind its pre-war levels but that the slide is continuing downward.

You can read the entire Brookings Institute Report if you’d like, also.

But, hey, Smith shows that there is not a lot of waste going on:

“But, I will say the military can’t be accused of opulence,” he said. “I thought there would be a restroom at Camp Victory but I still had to use the portable bathrooms.”

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!

In a statement released by his office, Smith said, “We have a long way to go. There is tough and difficult work ahead, but we are making progress. We have some incredible men and women serving in harm’s way to defend freedom. After meeting with our brave service men and women, I am convinced more than ever that the Global War on Terror must be won and democracy will prevail,” Smith said.

I’ve got a question for Adrian Smith, one that he and the rest of his crowd never answer: Just what exactly does a win on the “Global War on Terror” look like? Seriously, I’d like to know. Otherwise, that’s just another one of those empty talking points that has no real meaning.

Smith also talked about Afghanistan. I got the impression he knows very little about what’s happening in that region of the world:

Smith said in Afghanistan there are glimmers of hope as merchant vessels travel along the harbors.

Um…..Afghanistan has no harbors.



See. It's landlocked.

Opium is the main cash crop in Afghanistan and Smith said alternatives such as grapes and other crops should be pursued by the Afghan people.

Okay, I highlight this because, whether he realizes it or not, he doesn’t put two and two together to realize WHY opium is such a huge cash crop right now. Read further:

Smith said he hopes Iraq's government will soon achieve the relative stability enjoyed by Afghanistan, which requires far fewer U.S. troops.
……….

Smith pointed to Afghanistan as a possible model. He said there are only 27,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
……….

Smith said he hopes Iraq will become more like Afghanistan, where a degree of a stability can be maintained with far fewer U.S. troops.
……….

Smith said one of the concerns he heard in Afghanistan is that Pakistan must do more to keep insurgents from crossing the Pakistani border into Afghanistan.

Now here is the disconnect with Smith. He sees Afghanistan as stabilized. He sees it as a “model”. Yet he talks about “insurgents” crossing from Pakistan (one of our "Allies"), but doesn’t get why opium is such a commodity.

Adrian Smith doesn’t realize that the increase in opium production - a level higher than before the US went in to take out the Taliban - is, in fact, in direct correlation of the level of occupancy and control of the Taliban in the rural regions of Afghanistan. The farmers aren’t growing other crops, like “grapes” (do you know how many years it would take to start a new orchard of grapes that produces?), because they are threatened and controlled by the Taliban. They have to grow poppies to pay the taxes the Taliban force on them. Yet Smith thinks that Afghanistan as a model of stability? Also, is he aware that Pakistan signed an agreement with the Taliban who are over the Pakistan border, allowing them to rule their own region?

The Taliban's Resurgence

In 2005 and 2006, the Taliban continued its resurgence, and 2006 became the deadliest year of fighting since the 2001 war. Throughout the spring, Taliban militants infiltrated southern Afghanistan, terrorizing villagers and attacking Afghan and U.S. troops. In May and June, Operation Mount Thrust was launched, deploying more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition forces to the south. In Aug. 2006, NATO troops took over military operations in southern Afghanistan from the U.S.-led coalition, which put a total of 21,000 American troops and 19,000 NATO troops on the ground. In September NATO launched the largest attack in its 57-year history. About 2,000—the vast majority Taliban fighters—were killed in military operations during the year.

After five years as Afghanistan's leader, President Hamid Karzai still has only marginal control over large swaths of his country, which is rife with warlords, militants, and drug smugglers. The Taliban now funds its insurgency through the drug trade, and in 2006 Afghanistan's opium harvest reached record levels, increasing by 50% and representing 92% of the world's opium supply.

The Afghan-Pakistani border, a remote and lawless tribal region where Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are suspected of hiding, has become a major haven for Islamic militants. Beginning in 2003, Pakistan has launched a major military offensive on its western border to combat al-Qaeda, and to a lesser extent, the Taliban, deploying 80,000 troops. But the region remains firmly under militant control, the civilian population has been alienated by the army's heavy-handed tactics, and the Pakistan army has suffered 800 deaths.

In September, Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf signed a controversial peace agreement with seven militant groups, who call themselves the "Pakistan Taliban." Pakistan's army has agreed to withdraw from the area and allow the Taliban to govern themselves, as long as they promise no incursions into Afghanistan or against Pakistani troops. Critics say the deal hands terrorists a secure base of operations; supporters counter that a military solution against the Taliban is futile and will only spawn more militants, contending that containment is the only practical policy.

Also:
Taliban's Cash Crop: Hardline militia netting millions from poppy trade it once banned

Here’s additional information on the Pakistan/Taliban agreement:

Pakistan, Militants Sign Peace Deal

Pakistan-Taliban Agreement Prompts Concern

Jerusalem Post: Pakistan, Taliban militants sign peace agreement

And Smith also needs to think about the fact that relations between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan are strained, as Musharraf lashes out at Karzai.

The fact is that, with the exception of the Kabul, most of the Afghan countryside is still under the control of the Taliban. Just got to this Google Search for Taliban and you see that things are not all rosy like he tries to make it out to be. There are car bombings, some new French hostages, battles, and the recent tragic killing of what may have been civilians by US troops. This is because the troops were pulled out to start a war with Iraq. But it’s clear that Adrian Smith has no clue about any of this that’s going on right now.

I’m going to be watching out for the statements made by those that went over at the same time as Smith, and would have saw the same things he did. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

In the mean time, I want to direct people to a story by Richard Engel. He’s a reporter that’s been in Iraq all 4 years now. He reports for NBC News, and has been in thick of things the entire time. He’s probably one of the top experts on what’ s been happening in Iraq because he’s lived it every day. He did a documentary chronicling the time there, and what he’s seen and experienced.

Engel: ‘I’ve seen so many ugly things’

Click on the video “War Zone Diaries”, or go through the transcripts. I watched the whole thing and it really opened my eyes. Adrian Smith needs to watch this documentary. He needs to see what people have been seeing on the ground: The distress of the Iraqi people, the courage of our troops and what they do to make it through each day. I explore the entire page, and all the videos. It’s a great resource.

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


Adrian Smith did the thing we knew he would do: He went to Iraq to make a show, and then came back to say what he already planned to say, all in an effort to support his own agenda. But that was what was expected of him. Why would we believe he would ever change his tune? We know he’s dedicated to his political career more than anything else.

I came to a realization, though. Adrian Smith will continue being the shady politican we know him to be because we let him. But I blame us, the constituents, for not pressuring him enough. And I especially blame the media in Nebraska the most.

Adrian Smith made so many statements in his little press conference, but the reports make it clear they asked very few questions. If they did, they didn’t force him to give a direct answer. They didn’t question him when he said things that contradicted what we have seen elsewhere (and what I just extensively gave you a very small taste of in the whole big picture out there). Further, I blame the editors more than the reporters themselves. So many in this state never want to make waves. They’re afraid that if they question someone like Adrian Smith, they’ll be accused of being “biased” against him. They’ve probably had some pressure in that area, I’m sure. But there’s a difference between “bias” and “reporting facts”. Sometimes there are issues that have several different viewpoints. Sometimes, though, there are issues that really only have one way of looking at them. It’s not biased when Adrian Smith says something, for a reporter to then ask him to comment on why his position or statement contradicts another’s statement or a fact on hand. Why is it that Adrian Smith can see one thing, while Chuch Hagel sees another when it comes to Iraq? Why aren’t the media in Nebraska asking those questions?

But instead we got a bunch of reports of “Smith said this, and Smith said that”, and there is absolutely no evidence of any questions being asked that challenged his statements.

I’m clearly biased. But then, I’m a blogger. I’m a private citizen stating my opinion. But at the same time, I just got done pointing out several places where what he said CLEARLY wasn’t supported by other more supported facts. His views versus military studies, for example, not coming close.

The questions should have been asked, and if he refused to answer, or tried to avoid, then that should have been reported.

Every 3rd District Resident out there needs to challenge Adrian Smith. They need to challenge their local newspapers through letters to the editors regarding this issue and any others they feel need addressed.I can’t do this alone. This is a team effort. A grassroots effort. We need to work together.

What a Surprise....

The first comments from Adrian Smith on his trip have been heard.

To recap, this is what I said just yesterday:

But I get the feeling we will probably just hear the same rhetoric as before with no changes. After all, we must stay the course and support the President's war at all costs.

This news report from KOTA/KDUH posted today:

CONGRESSMAN SMITH RETURNS FROM IRAQ
4/13/2007 - 04:00:09 PM
NEBRASKIANS WERE SURPRISED TO LEARN TODAY THAT 3RD DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN ADRIAN SMITH OF GERING SPENT THE LAST SERVAL DAYS IN IRAQ.

THE CONGRESSMAN ALONG WITH FIVE OF HIS COLLEGEUES IN WASHINGTON MADE THE TRIP, WHICH INCLUDED STOPS IN BAGHDAD, FALLUJAH AND RAMADI, AS WELL AS AFGHANISTIAN.

ACCORDING TO SMITH, GETTING AN UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WAR TORN COUNTRY IS ALWAYS HELPFUL.

"IT WAS SOMEWHAT OF A LAST MINUTE DEAL," SAID SMITH. "I PUT IN MY REQUEST SOME TIME AGO. TALKING TO SOME MILITARY OFFICIALS, WHO ENCOURAGED THE VISIT AND CERTAINLY IT'S ALWAYS BETTER, I THINK, TO SEE THINGS FOR FIRST HAND."

AFTER VISITING WITH TROOPS IN IRAQ AND SEEING THE SITUATION FOR HIMSELF, SMITH CONFIRMS HIS POSITION ON THE WAR, AND IS HOPEFUL THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING BILL PASSES.

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A LACK OF AN ORIGANIZED GOVERNMENT, ALLOWING GROUPS SUCH AS THE TALIBAN TO COME TO POWER, WHICH SMITH DOES NOT WANT TO SEE OCCUR AGAIN.

"WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PREVENTING THAT FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE WHETHER IT'S AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ," SMITH SAID. "AND WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS AND NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO PULL OUT. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET IN THERE, STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS AND ALLOW AND EMPOWER THE MILITARY LEADERSHIP TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THEY NEED TO MAKE."

SMITH WAS UNABLE TO MEET THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL GUARD, BUT WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH SEVERAL NEBRASKIANS AT EACH STOP.

SMITH BELIEVES THE MORALE OF THE SOLIDERS IS STILL GOOD.

So, Adrian Smith is just completely convinced on his position as it was preconceived. Interesting that you have people like Chuck Hagel and Oliver North who have also been over there and see things completely different. And they both have first hand military experience.

I follow a group called the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Their Director, Paul Rieckoff, appears on TV regularly. Here are a couple of videos where he talks about the ongoing war:







Adrian Smith doesn't get it. I'll listen to a veteran of this very war before I'll listen to Adrian Smith.

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

Now for a bit of fun. I got an interesting piece of hate email today. My husband and I had a great time exploring it. First off, the message said it was from "God", then there was the message itself. Here's a screen capture:



If that doesn't get you laughing, then go to the link:

LISA HANNAH
Damned by God
For Being a
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
ACTIVIST

Here's the irony - I'm a registered Independent! Anyway, you have got to explore the names posted. There is some hysterical stuff! Here's a few of my favorites, and what they are damned for:

- TOM MESSNER: Damned for always getting the weather wrong!
- HARRY POTTER: Damned for being angsty
- SEAN BRINKMAN: Damned for being a pathetic human being
- AMANDA HAYNES: Damned for being a snotty brat
- BLAKEYPOO: Damned for...I have my reasons
- GEORGE W BUSH: Damned for breathing
- SHANNON: Damned for killing baby seals
- LIAM: Damned for skipping town with my $6
- ASHLEYFACE: Damned for not believing in the Easter Bunny
- TABITHA: Damned for acting like a poser
- MARK: Damned for driving a gas guzzling truck, jerk
- THE OLD BROAD: Damned for being rational

You get the drift. And those are just the PG rated ones!

Have fun exploring. And thanks to whoever sent it!

Where in the World is Adrian Smith?

That's been my question this week, as media has been silent.

Until tonight.

The Omaha World Herald just posted an article: Nebraska congressmen to travel to Iraq despite bombing. Turns out, Yo Adrian's been in Iraq. These are the lines that mention him:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., was scheduled to fly out Thursday night and spend the weekend in Iraq. It's his fifth visit to the country.

At the same time, Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., was returning from his first trip there.
.
.
Smith, a first-term lawmaker, felt the need to go after just three months on the job because he wanted to talk to the troops and get firsthand information, said his spokesman, Chuck Isom.

Smith took a spot vacated by Terry, who has yet to go to Iraq. Terry said he had made plans to go previously, but he was bumped once at the last minute by a more senior lawmaker, and a second trip was canceled.

Interestingly enough, Lee Terry says what I suspect will happen with Adrian Smith, given that he's so predictable:

Terry said he has noticed that other congressmen's rhetoric on the House floor remains the same after their trips to Iraq.

Time for a rant.

Unless the Congress members going back and forth to Iraq are members of committees that deal directly with issues surrounding Iraq, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Defense, our Troops....you get the picture.....they should NOT be going. We, the taxpayers, foot this bill time and time again. Our soldiers have their hands full trying to protect each other and the innocent victims caught in the middle of this civil war (yes, I went there....it's a civil war). Every time you have to pull dozens of soldiers out of their primary duties to guard the pasty white butts (yes, I know they're not all white, but just let me rant, okay?) of guys who probably wear shoes that are like butter, and have no actual concept of life and death like the people there do, they put our soldiers in even greater danger. Not only the ones that are left short of the usual numbers doing patrols, but also the ones protecting the politicians. Haven't they ever heard that the bad guys like to try and find ways to take out someone that's "important"? Especially an American? Guess who's going to be willing to step in and take that bullet or that piece of shrapnel - an action that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place?

Basically, Adrian Smith had a 2-week recess from the House. He took week one to go around and complain that no one is doing enough on the farm bill, and criticizing Nancy Pelosi and other members who had direct committee assignments that dealt with international relations and the ongoing actions in the Middle East. He then turns around and disappears for a week to take a jaunt over to Iraq - because we all know the Agriculture and Science & Technology committees have regular hearings on Iraq and the troops, right? - instead of meeting with as many constituents as possible to hear what their concerns are, or what their thoughts are on that farm bill he says no one is devoting enough time for.(And when I say listen, I mean not talking to hear himself talk about his own predetermined thoughts on the issues, as in that town hall robo call he did).

I actually hope that Adrian Smith was there in the area when that bomb went off in the Iraqi Parliment building, an area that was supposed to be one of the most secure areas within the "green" zone. I hope he witnessed the panic and the shock. I hope he was safe, but I hope no soldier was harmed while trying to keep him safe. Basically, I hope the reality on the ground came right on up and gave him a great big virtual slap in the face.

But I get the feeling we will probably just hear the same rhetoric as before with no changes. After all, we must stay the course and support the President's war at all costs.

Adrian on Child Abuse Prevention Month

Another opinion article published in the Scottsbluff Star-Herald this week by Adrian Smith. Once again, I have yet to see it show up in any other paper in the district, but will as always keep looking for it. He's commenting on the fact that April is Child Abuse Prevention Month:



It reads like a public service announcement. What he writes is not objectionable at all. That is what Child Abuse Prevention Month is all about. His staff did a good job of putting together the data that the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services had provided.

But while he sounds concerned and interested, he once again provides no suggestions for making this world a safer, better place for our children. I also recall that, during the election, he completely avoided dealing with the question of the child welfare system. In the NTV Questionaire, this is what was asked, and how he answered:

What do you see as the primary concerns in the Nebraska Child Welfare System? What are the factors that contribute to the failure of this system, and what would your plan be to address reform in the child welfare and mental health systems? Please be specific in your response.
Louise
Hastings

This is a state issue.

Actually, Adrian, it's not just a state issue. The Child Protective Services area, the food stamps, medicaid, housing, etc, all function with both state and federal dollars. Matter of fact, the cases involving state wards are evaluated to determine if they are eligible for what is called "IV-E Funding". Title IV-E is: "a subpart of Title IV of the federal Social Security Act. This program provides federal reimbursement to states for the costs of children placed in foster homes or other types of out-of-home care under a court order or voluntary placement agreement. Title IV-E benefits are an individual entitlement for qualified children who have been removed from their homes."

That's a federal program. Therefore, child abuse and child welfare are not just state issues. These are issues Adrian Smith can have a direct affect on.

Adrian Smith has not shown himself to be a person that works on advocating for the protection of abused and neglected children. During his 8 years as a State Senator, Adrian Smith co-sponsored only 2 bills that could have had a direct affect on protecting children: LB 111 in 2003 increasing the penalties for those involved with child pornography, and LB 179 in 2005 that increased the penalties for those caught driving under the influence with a minor present in the vehicle. During Smith's 2 terms, his biggest focus was instead co-sponsoring bills each year that tried to redefine an "unborn child" as a "person" in "wrongful deaths". It was an attempt to ban abortions. In other words, as my husband would say, he was making it clear he's pro-fetal life. Once the children were born, he didn't really take much time to focus on issues that directly affected those that were in need of our direct and immediate care.

Two bills in 8 years. You do the math.

What a Night!

A short entry tonight. I got the priviledge tonight of going to hear Governor Howard Dean in Omaha. Afterwards, I got to meet him and get a picture. I was truly honored when the Nebraska Democrats Executive, Matt Connealy, told Governor Dean about Smith Watch. The words of encouragement from Governor Dean yet again made it all worthwhile.

Got to meet and see several old friends, including Scott Kleeb. I was also excited when I met Kyle Michaelis, who runs the New Nebraska Network blog (a site I have always loved!).

As Governor Dean stated, we all have a duty to get out there and do what we can to make a difference. Knock on doors, talk to neighbors, donate your time or money (both are extremely important), ask the tough questions, GET INVOLVED!

Anyway, I debated whether to post my mug, but what the heck....will get back to reporting on Adrian Smith tomorrow!

Sunlight Foundation Transparency Scores

The Sunlight Foundation, who is connected with SourceWatch.org and their Congresspedia site, has come out with their scores on the transparency of the 110th Congress. According to their assessment, most of Congress fails.

The Sunlight Foundation based their study on the disclosures promised in the new Congress. They consider 40% or higher a passing score. Nebraska's Three rank as follows:

Fortenberry - 24%
Smith - 16%
Terry - 40%

You can go and explore the site for yourself. I have to say that Smith's score will probably go up to 25%, because he does have links to the bills he is sponsoring and cosponsoring.

Two of the criteria caught my interest:

Information on franked mail, including copies of letters and cost of sending them.

If you recall, I previously tried to get information on a mailing done by Smith's office. If you'll further recall, I got the complete run around with Smith's Chief of Staff, Jeff Shapiro. He flat out refused to give a direct answer. So it's not a surprise that it's an expectation for this information to be available, and Smith's office fails to meet that criteria.

A public calendar with the member's schedule, including attendees and subjects of meetings.

Again, not a surprise this is an expectation, and Adrian Smith fails. After all, I requested this very information from Smith a while back, and he failed to answer the question.

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

Now for a fun bit of trivia. Since starting this site nearly 12 weeks ago, I've had a tremendous amount of traffic. But where has everybody come from? I have the site meter that shows the number of visits at the bottom of the page. I also tacked on Google Analytics about 2 weeks after I started that gives me a lot more data.

There have been hits from a total of 63 countries worldwide. The top 10 are:

1. United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Australia
5. Germany
6. India
7. China
8. France
9. Japan
10. Netherlands

This is the breakdown of where all the worldwide hits came from:

NORTH AMERICA
- United States
- Canada

EUROPE
- United Kingdom
- Germany
- France
- Netherlands
- Sweden
- Denmark
- Spain
- Italy
- Belgium
- Norway
- Finland
- Ireland
- Poland
- Portugal
- Switzerland
- Ukraine
- Iceland
- Yugoslavia
- Slovenia
- Hungary
- Greece

SOUTH PACIFIC
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Philippines

ASIA
- India
- China
- Japan
- Republic of Korea
- Thailand
- Hong Kong
- Malaysia
- Bangladesh
- Taiwan
- Singapore
- Kyrgyzstan
- Maldives
- Indonesia

SOUTH AMERICA
- Argentina
- Brazil
- Chile
- Peru
- Venezuela

CARIBBEAN
- Puerto Rico
- Costa Rica
- Virgin Islands, U.S.
- Aruba
- Jamaica

CENTRAL AMERICA
- Mexico
- Panama
- Nicaragua
- Guatemala
- Colombia

AFRICA
- Nigeria
- South Africa
- Zimbabwe
- Senegal
- Benin

MIDDLE EAST
- United Arab Emirates
- Islamic Republic of Iran
- Jordan
- Israel

As far as the United States goes, there have been hits from all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia. Here’s the top 10:

1. Nebraska
2. California
3. District of Columbia
4. New York
5. Maryland
6. Texas
7. Illinois
8. Colorado
9. Washington
10. Pennsylvania

Within Nebraska, there have been hits from a total of 106 towns. The top 25 are:

1. Lincoln
2. Scottsbluff
3. Omaha
4. Hastings
5. North Platte
6. Valentine
7. Odessa
8. Kearney
9. Grand Island
10. York
11. Elm Creek
12. Gering
13. Minatare
14. Potter
15. Crete
16. Riverdale
17. Curtis
18. Staplehurst
19. Papillion
20. Morrill
21. Mc Cook
22. Bellevue
23. Doniphan
24. Mitchell
25. Winslow

Finally, the top 10 Networks through which people are accessing the site:

1. Charter Communications
2. Comcast Cable
3. Road Runner
4. Cox Communications
5. Qwest Communications
6. SBC Internet Services
7. Verizon Internet Services
8. US Senate Sargeant at Arms
9 Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
10. State of Nebraska/Office of the CIO

Thanks for all your ongoing support!

Discrepencies and Questions on Smith's Biography

I recently took the time to go to Adrian Smith's House website, and read his biography that posted. This is a snapshot of the page:




Now, you can go and read the entire thing yourself, but there are a couple things that raised questions. The very first thing is the first line:

Gering native and sixth-generation Nebraskan

So when did Adrian Smith's family suddenly turn into a family that has been here for six generations, when before he always was a "fourth-generation Nebraska"? I did a search just to make sure I didn't have a faulty memory, and this is what I found:

1. Adrian Smith Campaign Letter
Click on "Page 1", and you find:

"My family roots run deep here in Nebraska. As a fourth generation Nebraskan..."

Click on "Page 2", and you find Adrian's signature.

2. 2006 Rural Nebraska Voter Guide

Adrian Smith, a native of Scottsbluff, is a fourth-generation resident of Nebraska's Third Congressional District.

3. News from the Agriculture Committee Republicans

A fourth generation Nebraskan, Rep. Smith will work to promote fair agriculture trade and innovation in crops.

4. House Conservatives Fund: Adrian Smith

From Adrian Smith's campaign website, www.joinadrian.com:
Biography

Adrian Smith, a native of Gering, is a fourth-generation resident of Nebraska’s Third Congressional District.

5. Adrian Smith Hosting Fundraiser at McCook Senior Center
This is one of those press releases that Smith's camp released during the election. Usually at the bottom of each was the following statement:

Adrian Smith, a Republican, is running for the Third Congressional District. Smith was first elected State Senator in 1998 and again in 2002 to serve the 48th Legislative District in the Nebraska Legislature. Smith is a fourth generation resident of the Third Congressional District and is involved in real estate in Gering and Scottsbluff. Smith has also been a delegate to the National Republican Convention. Prior to his service in the Legislature, Smith served on the Gering City Council. Smith graduated from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln.

6. Liberty University: Former LU student makes bid for Congress

As a fourth-generation Nebraskan, Smith also would like Liberty students from his state to take an interest in state issues.

The next thing that popped out was actually an omission. Smith's biography states:

Public service has long been a priority for Congressman Smith. While a student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, he interned in the Nebraska Governor’s Office and, later, served as a legislative page in the Nebraska Unicameral. Upon graduating from college, he moved back to Gering, where in 1994, he began serving his hometown as a member of the Gering City Council.

Smith leaves out the fact that he attended Liberty University in Virginia for 3 semesters, before coming back to Nebraska. For those not familiar with Liberty University, it is the school that Jerry Falwell founded. It has a pretty poor history, one you can read about. Needless to say, if you want extremists and fringe groups, you can probably find them at Liberty University.

Smith obviously went there and gave his infamous line I leave quoted on the side: "I hope to be in the House for a good long time....I want to get elected and stay there until retirement.” He collected some money from them for his campaign even. But he doesn't acknowledge ever attending there on his official website. Why not? Isn't he proud of his affiliation with that school?

Finally....

He was also the only Republican freshman to be selected as a “Congressional Insider” by the Capitol Hill publication National Journal.

This is what I found out about the National Journal on Wikipedia:

Its high subscription price (US$1,885 per annum) in part reflects its wealthy and powerful clientele, and also that most of its subscribers are institutions (such as government agencies, political bodies, lobbying firms, trade associations, and other interest groups) rather than individuals.

To be a congressional insider, one has to be willing to kiss up to those with the most money and power. Can you guess who the National Journal cozies up to?

Yep. The Club for Growth. They even state on one of their websites:

National Journal magazine ranked the Club as one of the most effective political organizations in America.

And here is one example, and a second example, of the Club for Growth and National Journal relationship.

So, even in his biography, Adrian Smith continues to show his true colors.

Smithian Factoids and Other Stuff

Adrian Smith talked with a few constituents this week. Some of it was previously addressed, but I got an email from a reader that provided some additional statements by Smith that were not openly reported.

But first, some loose ends to tie up.

As indicated in the House Actions update for last week, Smith introduced a bill that he claimed would revitalize rural development. He made a press release about it, and there was a brief TV report on his announcement:

Smith Introduces Bill to Revitalize Rural Communities
Bill aims to revive rural communities

The text of the bill was finally posted on THOMAS:

H. R. 1839
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 15-year recovery period for nonresidential real property in rural areas.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY IN RURAL AREAS.
(a) In General- Subparagraph (E) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 15-year property) is amended by striking `and' at the end of clause (vii), by striking the period at the end of clause (viii) and inserting `, and', and by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(ix) any nonresidential real property placed in service in a rural area (as defined in section 1393(a)(2)).'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of this Act.

He’s right that this isn’t a “magic bullet”. There are a lot of factors that go into determining if a business is going to be placed in areas where the population is small and getting smaller. This will benefit the rural business owners presently in place if passed. I’m awaiting the CBO’s estimate of what this will cost. If there are no Paygo offsets indicated to cover any lost revenue, this may be dead in the water. We shall see. Any tax experts out there are welcome to comment.


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

Also in last weeks House Actions update, I pointed out the fact that Smith voted against H.R. 137, a bill strengthening the prohibition of animal fighting.

This week, the Kearney Hub published this letter to the editor on Smith’s vote:

Rep. Adrian Smith voted against cracking down on barbaric and illegal dog fighting and cockfighting. The House approved the measure 368 to 39.

The National Sheriff’s Association backed the bill because animal fights spawn narcotics traffic, corruption, violence and illegal gambling.

The poultry industry also endorsed the legislation to prevent the spread of avian diseases, including bird flu.

We are disappointed that Smith voted otherwise.

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO of the Humane Society of the United States
Washington, D.C.

I did a quick search and found this article that states:

More than 500 groups have endorsed the bills, including all major humane organizations, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Sheriffs' Association and more than 400 local law enforcement agencies covering all 50 states, states HSUS literature.

The bill establishes a felony-level penalty of up to three years of jail time for any interstate or foreign transport of animals for fighting purposes, according to research.

Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states, states the HSUS website.

To vote against this bill was, as I said, essentially Smith saying he hates your dog. I can’t even begin to imagine the reasoning behind voting against such a bill!


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

Now to an email I received from a reader.

I was informed that during at least one appearance by Smith this week, he made direct remarks slamming Nancy Pelosi. As we can all remember, he and other Republicans tried to use her name to scare people during the campaign into thinking she was pure evil - she wanted all your income, wanted gays married, wanted all babies to be aborted, and wanted the terrorists to take over America.

Smith apparently decided to spread one flat out lie that was long ago corrected, and to join his colleagues in giving very misleading information on recent events.

First, Smith apparently once again spread the lie that Nancy Pelosi wanted taxpayers to pay for her to fly to California on a big plane. I had previously mentioned this issue after watching the live floor statements during a bill being debated that had nothing to do with this matter, but which the Republicans used to try and spread the lie as quickly as possible.

Here are the facts: Nancy Pelosi never made the request for the bigger plane. She also wasn’t the one that asked for a plane in the first place. This was a rule implemented after 9/11, and one that Speaker Hastert used.

This Think Progress blog entry explained the whole matter, where the White House was actually defending Pelosi against the Republican attacks. But I wish to point out the statement released by the Senate Sergeant at Arms:

Statement of the House Sergeant at Arms

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Adrian Smith should be ashamed of himself for continuing to spread such a lie.

Next, Smith apparently made a comment on Pelosi’s trip to Syria. The Republican spin machine has been working overtime on this issue, with the media lapping it right up.

But their contentions are completely misleading and not giving the full truth on the matter. The fact that Smith is joining right in doesn’t surprise me. They want to play politics. They could care less about the reality of the matter.

Here are the facts: Nancy Pelosi did go to Syria and did meet with President Assad. But while she is being assailed for her visit and criticized for going in the first place, there is silence on the other visitors to talk with President Assad over the last week.

Right before Nancy Pelosi went, three members of Congress went to Syria: Rep. Robert Aderholt of Ohio, Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania. Right after Nancy Pelosi left, Rep. Darrell Issa of California paid a visit.

All of these Congressmen are Republicans.

Republicans part with Bush on Syria diplomacy
BEN EVANS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration," said Rep. Robert Aderholt of Haleyville. "It doesn't mean you're weak in your policy or that there's no problems ... We just wanted to let them know that the lines of communication are open and if we can find some common ground on some issues we need to go forward on that."

Bush sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for leading a delegation to meet with Syria's president, Bashar Assad.

The White House, however, stayed relatively quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by Aderholt and GOP Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.

Returning on Wednesday, the lawmakers said they made clear to Assad that they support Bush and were not representing the administration. But they said they felt it was important to maintain dialogue.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

Washington accuses Syria of backing Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups it deems terrorist organizations. The Bush administration also says Syria is contributing to the violence in Iraq by allowing Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory and is destabilizing Lebanon's government.

The lawmakers said they pressed Assad to clamp down on terrorism and to cut off support for Hezbollah. They also discussed human rights, Israel and Lebanon, they said.

"None of us in the Congress work for the president," Aderholt said. "We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line."
A White House spokesman, Alex Conant, said the administration tries to deter lawmakers from both parties from engaging Assad.

"We discourage all visits to Syria because it's a state sponsor of terror," he said. "A lot of officials have gone, and it hasn't changed the Syrians' behavior."

A recent Washington Post news article further states: “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Furthermore, those with her stated that Pelosi stuck to the Bush policy line regarding Syria and their ongoing sponsorship with terrorists."

And Nancy Pelosi’s trip is not a first for a Speaker of the House. Speaker Dennis Hastert went to Columbia. While there, he allegedly told the leaders he met with to circumvent the Clinton White House and work directly with Congress. You can read the entire report on this issue:

Wash. Post left out full extent of Hastert's circumvention of Clinton admin. in working directly with Colombians

On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, it was reported that John Boehner made a statement that shows the mentality of the far-right on this matter.

“It’s one thing for other members to go…but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?’ She’s going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president.”
Source: Columbus Dispatch

Is he talking about her position or the person?

While diplomacy is the job of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch has the duty of oversight, and making trips is part of this oversight.

And last night, it was reported that these contacts last week may have bore fruit. In a region where talks have not been happening, a London paper apparently reported that President Assad stated he would work for an agreement between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel for the release of 3 Israeli soldiers kidnapped last year. Palestinian President Abbas then told French TV that one of them would be released very soon.

You can watch the video reports:

In Syria’s Trouble?

Talking Heads of State

By Smith joining in with the spin on this matter, he actually adds to the division in this country. How pathetic. The fact is that talking with Syria (and Iran) were recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. Talk does not equate weakness. Refusing to talk, and calling the others names, is the worst thing we could ever do when it comes to bringing peaceful solutions to our world, and especially that region. We talked with the Soviets during the Cold War, and it’s those talks that kept full blown war from breaking out. The recent release of the British soldiers through talks is also an example of how talks work.

Smith needs to stop playing the partisan politics and stop misleading his constituents.

Media Coverage in Nebraska: It’s hit and miss

There have been several news “reports” in the Nebraska media the last couple days. Some show a true attempt at doing a report on what happened, others appear to be nothing more than fluff pieces.

But first, I wrote a lengthy response to Adrian Smith’s budget article, and the York New-Times published it. Here is the text of what I wrote:

Adrian Smith misleads constituents

The York News-Times published an article recently written by Congressman Adrian Smith. In that article, Smith made a lot of statements, but actually said nothing but a lot of rhetoric and political spin.

So far in Congress, Smith has done very little to help the people of Nebraska. Most of his votes have been ones that please his biggest campaign contributors, but do nothing to benefit Third District residents. He was also recently 1 of only 3 Congressmen who failed to turn in earmarks for his district, claiming that the new House rules were 'ethically confusing'. It's only because of the generosity of the majority that they are going to allow him more time to turn them in.

In this article, Smith talked about balancing the budget, and that taxes are going to be raised. This is a false approach, one that many Republicans are using. What he fails to explain is that when Republicans enacted the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they set a date for them to expire. So, in a sense, they allowed for the tax cuts to be eliminated by 2010. In this article, and other press releases, he's tried to say that a lot of benefits would be "eliminated" but that would not be the case. They would simply go back to the 2000 Clinton-era levels. Those tax rates were still some of the lowest in history, except for the very wealthiest of Americans.

Smith also made the statement: 'Thanks to tax cuts like killing the death tax, our economy is now strong'. Again, this is false. The Estate Tax was not 'killed', as it is still out there. And it would cease for 2010 only, but then it goes back to 2000 rates. But what Smith fails to acknowledge is that many economists, the National Farmers Union and the Congressional Budget Office have all pointed out eliminating the Estate Tax would hurt many, especially Nebraska's farmers, rather than help. At $3.5 Million (the deductible in 2009), only 65 farms in the United States would face possible Estate taxes. But eliminating the Estate Tax would result in an increase in income taxes for farmers due to the elimination of the 'step-up' provision, and would result in massive cuts to farm programs. Many propose a permanent deductible of $4 Million rather than elimination.

Smith further failed to explain that the Democrats budget plan is NOT to eliminate many of the Bush tax cuts, except for the wealthiest Americans. They are setting aside revenue to try and pay for the continuation of these cuts after 2010. But, according to the Paygo rules, there must be offsets. If those offsets cannot fully be set, then and only then would those tax cuts expire. Smith didn't mention that. While he joined some Republicans in the Budget Committee in trying to make all the tax cuts permanent, they failed to provide for any offsets of any kind, which would effectively increase the national debt.

The fact is that under Bush and Republican control, the national debt has increased a whopping 60% in 6 years, from $5.5 Trillion to $8.8 Trillion. This country has been at war also during that time period, and for the first time in history, Americans have not been asked to sacrifice a little bit financially to ensure the troops receive the funding they need to do their jobs. The fact is that our country cannot continue at this pace, or we just end up passing along our problems on to later generations who will have to sacrifice a lot more than we would now, all to correct our own selfishness.

Adrian Smith gave absolutely no plan and no suggestions for change in his article. He spouted a political position with no substance to back it up. Furthermore, he continues to take positions 100% in line with the Club for Growth, who would like to see the wealthiest Americans receive most of the benefits, and the elimination of most programs that help the people who need it the most. This includes farm programs. If this is what we are to continue to expect from Adrian Smith, it's going to be a long 2 years until the 2008 elections.

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

In the articles this week, only one wrote of any disapproval or disagreement with Smith and his comments. That was the Chadron Record article: "Smith sees little progress in Congress on new Farm Bill".

In the McCook Gazette Article, "Adrian Smith says capital preoccupied by Iraq war", they mentioned topics that were brought up that would have made Adrian Smith rather uncomfortable, because they dealt with entitlement issues. However, the paper did not report on his reaction or response to those issues.


In both papers, he made a comment on the Farm Bill. Specifically, in the Chadron Record, they reported:

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith told an audience at Chadron State College on Monday that little progress has been made on the new Farm Bill since he went to Washington, D.C., in January, even though the legislation is vitally important to the nation.

U.S. Representative Adrian Smith
Smith said the United States must continue to have “a good, sustainable, domestic food supply” and can’t become dependent on other countries for food like we are for petroleum.

“We must have a safety net around our food supply,” the 36-year-old Republican stated with regard to the Farm Bill.

The current Farm Bill expires in September. Smith said the chairman of the House of Representatives’ Agricultural Committee, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, seems to think there’s still time to write a new bill that can be sent to President Bush before the deadline, but the rookie congressman seemed skeptical. Smith is a member of the Ag Committee as well as the Budget and Science and Technology Committees in the House.

There have been at least 8 hearings just in the Committee on Agriculture on issues that are a part of the Farm Bill. Other Committees other have had some hearings on some issues connected with the farm bill. A lot of thought, debate and consideration is going into the Farm Bill.

Here’s what I don’t get. Smith is sitting here feeling not enough is being done: a Freshman criticizing a long-time veteran (Peterson), who has worked on this committee for a very long time. But this contradicts what he stated in his letter. In response to questions on his votes during the First 100 Hours, he stated:

Thoughtful and open consideration of these proposals should have allowed for all Members of Congress to participate in committee hearings, examine expert witnesses, and offer motions to amend legislation. Because these steps were not taken, I voted to transfer the proposals to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction for closer examination.

The difference between the First 100 Hours legislation and the Farm Bill is that the First 100 were bills that had been vetted repeatedly in prior Congresses, but never put forth by the Republican Majority. The Farm Bill, however, is a different beast. What was thought to work 5 years ago, won’t necessarily work in today’s economic and ecological climates. Now is the time for “thoughtful and open consideration”. Why the rush? I get the impression this is what the Paging Power guys decribed: Adrian’s trying to be the biggest, baddest conservative he can be.


In the McCook Paper, he informed the people there:

Most of the talk in Washington has been centered on the Iraq war, with very little discussion on anything else.

You think? But that’s not actually the true. The media is very fixated on Iraq, and that is what the politicians are asked about. What Adrian Smith does not state is that this House has debated and passed first round votes on more bills in the first 2-3 months than the last Congress did in nearly an entire year. But a lot of those issues aren’t headline grabbers. Smith fails to say anything as he tries to, again, portray himself as something he’s not.


Smith is mentioned talking about “No Child Left Behind” in both articles, and in both articles he does nothing to offer up actual plans or proposals. He did the same during his campaign. He says it needs changed one time, then eliminated the next, but has never given other ideas on what to do change it or replace it. Everyone I think agrees it’s a bust, but a real leader would have ideas to float out there.


The McCook Gazette wrote this in their article:

Other concerns mentioned to Smith included: an 11 percent cut in Head Start programs and families who need two parents working yet not being eligible for the program; cuts in reimbursements to housing authorities; food stamp vouchers that need to come with education and decreasing welfare benefits gradually instead of all at once when the head of a household returns to work.

Smith is on the bandwagon that says these things should be cut way back. He backed the President’s initial budget plan that did just that. These issues were brought up by constituents as having a negative impact on families in his district if cut way back, and yet the McCook Gazette fails to report if he had any type of response or comment. Is it that he had nothing to say? If so, that’s just as telling as anything.


The Chadron Record’s article ended with a real balance on their report, showing that things were not all rosy for Adrian before this crowd:

Several members of the audience took issue with Smith’s recent newspaper column in which he expressed skepticism over fears of global warming. They said his statements are contrary to the findings of thousands of scientists around the world and disparage their work.

Regardless, Smith said that because China and India are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol and have rampant air pollution while emerging as economic powers, he will not support the treaty.

In response to another statement by a member of the audience, Smith said he “was not elected to carry water for President Bush.”

I’ve seen Adrian when he gets put on the spot. It’s not a pretty picture. I’m glad the citizens of the Chadron area held him accountable, and that the Chadron Record actually reported it.


For those interested, the SWNebraska.net has audio of when Adrian Smith was meeting with people in McCook. He sounds a bit confused at times as they try to explain things to him. The crap thing is he starts going on about Iraq and how he’s going to go meet the guys on the frontline sometime. Why??? There are several things he says that go completely unchallenged that should have been, so listen at the risk of your own blood pressure.

Also, NTV did a brief report that told nothing, but the Smith quote they play on the link is, well.....I have yet to figure out what he was trying to say:

Congressman Smith said that raising taxes won't solve budget problems.
Representative Smith said, "If we do not reform entitlements, it won't matter how we increase taxes even with a growing economy. Let's just assume, unlikely so that it might be, that tax increase will allow the economy to keep growing the way it has been growing."

Huh? At any rate, notice it appears there were probably less than 10 people present.


Now to the Fluff pieces. The two biggest papers, the Grand Island Independent, and the Kearney Hub, do nothing to question Adrian in any way. They do promotional pieces, really. It’s disappointing, especially when you consider the nearly half the 3rd District voted against what he stood for. There should be questions.


Bringing Congress to class

The GI Independent reported on Smith’s visit to a class at Wood River.

The initial reception for Rep. Adrian Smith at Wood River Rural High School on Wednesday wasn't quite rock-star treatment, but it was pretty adoring.

Oh give me a break! But then this funny thing happens:

Then came the signing of his Wall of Fame photo.

"This is kind of embarrassing," Smith said as he signed his photo, right next to mugs of Nancy Pelosi and Fidel Castro.

Absolutely poetic! Then this catches the eye:

Smith began by highlighting Nebraska's job opportunities and encouraging students to consider attending college and taking jobs in state.

Too bad some of the kids didn’t then chime in and ask: “Yo Adrian, if you want us to go to college, why did you vote against decreasing the Student Loan interest rates???” Sort of begged asking at that point, and a good reporter would have followed up later at least.

But this comment.....

On campaign finance regulation: "It's become so burdensome. It's unfortunate because it keeps normal people from running."

You heard it here, folks. He sold his soul to the Club for Growth, and doesn’t consider himself one of the “normal people”. Yeah, well, we already knew that.

But here’s the scary part, and one that we need to really watch out for: Evidence that the talking points and bullshit have worked on a young, impressionable mind:

Several class members, including senior Alex Egger, had met Smith on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., last week as part of a Close-Up trip.

But for Egger, the visit didn't seem redundant. Instead, it was more of a chance to hear someone with experience in local, state and federal government weigh in on issues they had debated during the last month.

And the more he heard, the more he liked -- enough to make him reconsider his vote last November.

"If I was to vote again, I'd vote for him," Egger said. "He's changed my mind on so many issues. And he's a really personable guy. That's what I like about him."

Here’s a question: Did the reporter see any kids in the classroom who were less than impressed? You can’t tell me there weren’t any. That’s not reality. But interesting that only the starstruck were quoted.


Next, the Kearney Hub reported:

Congressman visits communities in district to hear their problems, tout their successes and recharge

Nothing is actually reported, just how Adrian feels he’s doing or what he’s doing to feel that way. But this one comment adds to what I heard him say at his GI Office opening about never getting a break:

Since winning election in November, Smith said his life has been crazy.

“It has been nonstop, that’s for sure,” he said. “I am taking my responsibilities very seriously.”

But the boy trying to play adult then comes out:

Smith said there still are days when he finds himself in awe of his surroundings in Washington.

“There are moments when I’m walking down the hallway and John McCain or Joe Lieberman walk by. Those are still pretty incredible, eye-opening experiences.”

Come on, Nebraska Reporters!! We’ve got a media out there that are waking up and asking the hard hitting questions of all our politicians now. Why is it that Nebraska’s media just lays back and gives one of the most extreme of the Republican Party a pass? Why is it that Nebraska media always seem to be behind the times and avoiding the issues?

Nebraska citizens need to really start standing up more and more and demanding accountability through our media. So many are motivated to WANT to do something, but very few are actually following through.

Write a letter to your newspapers. Write directly to Adrian Smith and demand answers. Show up at his events and confront him.

Speak out. Be heard. Lead.

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


On a side note, everyone needs to go to Paging Power and watch this video of Stephen Colbert interviewing Lee Terry. Be prepared to die laughing!

Adrian Writes Another Article

Adrian Smith wrote another campaign re-election update for constituents. This time it was published in the York News-Times, titled Wounded Warriors. Here is a snip of the on-line edition:



As was previously reported, Smith had put out a press release to announce he was visiting. I stated then:

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?

Well, here is the result of that visit. An "article" to proclaim his activities as our Congressman. But let's look just a bit closer at his article:

The problems unveiled rise above partisan politics, and Members of both parties are taking steps to correct this situation to make sure our brave men and women in the Armed Forces receive the quality care they deserve.

That's right. This is a non-partisan issue, and the situation shouldn't be one to play politics with, right?

Recently, I voted for and the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act, a bill to ensure America's injured and wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines receive the finest healthcare available through the military health care system.

"Ah. Look at me. I voted to support our troops. I'm a great Congressman."

But what Adrian fails to explain, and what I pointed out earlier this week, is that he joined with 178 Republicans to vote AGAINST H.RES.274, the bill that provided for the consideration of H.R.1538. By voting AGAINST H.RES.274, he was prepared to prevent debate, consideration and final vote of H.R.1538. He was prepared to delay the passage of that bill.

When H.R. 1538 did pass, it was a unanimous vote. ALL of the House members voted for the bill. So, in the long run, he didn't work to provide for our soldiers, but when he and his fellow Republicans were prevented from blocking consideration, THAT was when he jumped on board.

But, hey, visiting Walter Reed and then showing up to vote allows him to toot his own horn, and write yet another article to promote himself. Unfortunately, it's yet again misleading, and yet again he provides no real content. Just posturing.

Smith Can't Decide on Gonzales Yet

Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry came out this week and stated on the record that he thinks Attorney General Alberto Gonzales needs to go. The Omaha World Herald reported this, and within the article, it turns out that the press tried to also ask Adrian Smith his stance on the issue.

You can read the entire article, Terry calls for attorney general to step down, but here is the line on Smith:

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said he was not ready to call for Gonzales' resignation. Smith spokesman Charles Isom said he had some concerns but would wait to hear Gonzales' testimony.

Couple things here. First, we once again see Adrian Smith unable to take a stand on an issue that negatively impacts his party. Even though everyone who reads a newspaper, reads online news articles, or who watches national news, has seen and heard the details of what his happening with this case. Gonzales has testified already, and many things he stated have been refuted or proven false. It's the cover up that is causing the problem. Even Lee Terry makes the following points in the article:

Terry said his trust and faith in Gonzales have been "greatly diminished" as evidence has accumulated that contradicts Gonzales' assertions that he was only minimally involved in the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"The issue is now, 'Is Gonzales a truthful person and is he capable of running the Department of Justice?'" Terry said. "Unfortunately, I don't have faith in him in either one of those areas."

He said Gonzales' credibility problems are self-inflicted.

All that, and yet Adrian Smith can't make up his mind yet. But he's "concerned". Speaking of "concerned", that's another of his favorite words, outside of "proud". It's also code for "I don't know" or "I haven't been told what to think yet." Quite frankly, I think Smith is scared to ever take any stance that would result in even an indirect criticism of his party's leadership. To criticize Gonzales would be to take a stand against Bush, and he's just not capable of doing anything like that.

The second thing is that, once again, we see his statements going through his spokesman. Almost all of Adrian Smith's statements to the press go either through his staff (usually Chris Isom or Jeff Shapiro), or in the form of press releases. I was previously told by different reporters I've talked with about how they have such a difficult time getting Smith to talk directly with them, and answer direct questions. Smith and his staff seem to be taking a page from the Bush Administration during Bush's first term. It was extremely rare for Bush to take questions, and even then, it would be prescreened questions that had to be submitted prior to the press conference. Remember that robocall he did where he pulled in people for a "live" farm bill talk? Only, he gave a speech, and the few questions allowed from constituents were prescreened.

I keep hoping someday Smith can actually answer a direct question with a direct answer. But that hope will not last forever, and that policy will wear thin with third district voters.

April Fool's!

Thank God this was a joke!!

Moon: Foolin' around with the news

In another political story, Warren Buffett, long thought to be a Democrat, announced his endorsement of newly declared presidential candidate Adrian Smith, a freshman Republican congressman from Nebraska. Prior to being elected in 2006, Smith served on the City council in his hometown of Gering, Neb. (population: 7,751). Smith promises to strengthen the dollar and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign investment.

House Actions 3/26/07 - 3/30/07

This week brought about the vote on a major bill that begins implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations, as well as a vote on the FY2008 budget. Let’s get started with this weeks review.

On the weekly Floor Summary, Smith’s name showed up on 3/27/07 at 9:17PM:

Mr. Smith of NE requested the following general leaves to address the House on March 28: Mr. Wolf for 5 min and Mr. Bartlett of MD for 5 min.

Essentially, he was probably left in the chamber to make those requests on the other Congressmens’ behalf.

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

There were a lot of roll call votes this week. Only one was what would be considered ceremonial in nature:

H RES 266 - Supporting the goals and ideals of Professional Social Work Month and World Social Work Day

The rest all need further discussion.


H.R.802 - To amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.

Also known as the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act, it passed on a vote of 359-48-26. All 48 Nay votes were Republicans, but Smith actually voted for this bill.


H.R.137 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other purposes.

Per the CRS Summary:

Prohibits knowingly: (1) sponsoring or exhibiting a bird in a fighting venture in a state where it would not otherwise be a violation of the law if the person knew that any bird in the venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for such purpose; (2) selling, buying, transporting, delivering, or receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal to participate in an animal fighting venture; (3) using the mails or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech to promote an animal fighting venture, except as performed outside the limits of the states (with an exception for bird fights in states whose laws allow them); or (4) selling, buying, transporting, or delivering in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, gaff, or other sharp instrument for attachment to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.

It’s a bill that tightens and strengthens penalties for things like dog or cock fights, something that still happens, unfortunately. These are activities that are extremely cruel to animals.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 368-39-26.
FOR: 153 Republicans, 215 Democrats
AGAINST: 37 Republicans, 2 Democrats
NO VOTE: 11 Republicans, 15 Democrats
Unbelievably, Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL. Makes one wonder what Smith has against protecting animals from inhumane treatment. This is a rather disturbing vote, one where he’s clearly in the minority all around.


H.R.580 - To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for a 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General, and for other purposes.

This bill came about as a result of the ongoing fiasco surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and US Attorney’s that were fired. In the Patriot Act, a little known provision had been slipped in that allowed for the AG to appoint his own US Attorney’s in vacancies without Congressional approval. This, and a Senate version, would limit the term of the appointment to be only 120 days, thus keeping someone in the job, but giving time for a candidate to be considered by the appropriate Congressional oversight committee. It essentially puts back one of the checks and balances that should never have been removed in the first place.

The bill passed on a vote of 329-78-26.
FOR: 113 Republicans, 216 Democrats
AGAINST: 78 Republicans
NO VOTE: 10 Republicans, 16 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill. He joined the usual: Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Eric Cantor.

On a good note, though, Nebraska Reps Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry did vote FOR this bill.


H.RES.270 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1401) to improve the security of railroads, public transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United States, and for other purposes.

This bill sets forth the rules for consideration of HR 1401. Once again, we see the 2-vote situation.

On “Ordering the Previous Question”, the motion passed 222-199-12.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, the bill passed 223-199-11.

Both were essentially party line votes, with Democrats for, Republicans against. I get the impression, more and more, that Republicans just don’t want to make passage of any bills easy at any time, and purely for political reasons.


H.R.1401 - To improve the security of railroads, public transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United States, and for other purposes.

This represents one of the first major bills to be put forth that satisfies the House Rules adopted in January, where they pledged to start implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This first bill is for the security of ground transportation. It includes security guidelines and plans, information sharing plans, security training, whistleblower protections, inspections and increases in the number of inspectors, establishment of a National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, homeland security grants, threat assessment screening, penalties, enhanced security measures for moving sensitive materials, rail radiological and nuclear detection, establishment of a terrorist watch list and immigration status reviews at high-risk transportation sites, canine detection teams, and many other things within the realm of ground transportation issues.

There were 9 amendments offered. Of those, 8 were submitted by individuals. Three of those passed by voice vote, and one failed by voice vote.

H.AMDT.60 submitted by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, “to make technical and clerical changes to H.R. 1401, as reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. It also clarifies the relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation in carrying out certain portions of the bill, and modifies the whistleblower protections for federal employees and contractors to make them more similar to those granted in H.R. 985.

It passed on a vote of 224-199-1-14.
FOR: 224 Democrats
AGAINST: 196 Republicans, 3 Democrats
PRESENT: 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 6 Republicans, 8 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this amendment.

But then Price of Georgia asked for a separate, second vote later. Once again it passed on a vote of 222-197-5-9. Results were nearly the same. Smith again voted AGAINST the amendment.


H.AMDT.62 submitted by Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, “to establish a program to coordinate with state and local governments to enable minimize the need for transportation of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail.”

It passed on a vote of 237-188-13.
FOR: 11 Republicans, 226 Democrats
AGAINST: 187 Republicans, 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 9 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this amendment.

But then Price of Georgia once again demanded a separate vote. It once again passed, this time on a vote of 234-184-4-11. Smith again voted AGAINST the amendment.

H.AMDT.64 submitted by Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, “to prohibit funds in this act, except those noted in Section 108, from being used by Amtrak for any of the Top 10 worst revenue losing long-distance routes as noted by its September 2006 monthly performance report. This amendment provides a waiver from this provision should the Secretary deem a route or a portion of a route as critical to homeland security.”

It FAILED on a vote of 130-299-9.
FOR: 127 Republicans, 3 Democrats
AGAINST: 72 Republicans, 227 Democrats
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

H.AMDT.66 submitted by Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, “to strike the section of the bill that provides a new Homeland Security grant program, `Over-The-Road Bus Security Assistance'.

It FAILED on a vote of 98-332-8.
FOR: 93 Republicans, 5 Democrats
AGAINST: 107 Republicans, 225 Democrats
NO VOTE: 2 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment.

I have to point out that both the Sessions and Flake Amendments would have resulted in eliminating or severly reducing the ability to address major security concerns found by the 9/11 Commission. Both times Smith (Joining Blunt, Boehner, Cantor and Terry) voted to implement these changes.

On the “Motion to Recommit with Instructions” to the House Homeland Security Committee, the motion passed 304-121-8.
FOR: 199 Republicans, 105 Democrats
AGAINST: 121 Democrats
NO VOTE: 2 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted FOR the motion.

The House Homeland Security offered an amendment, which passed with a voice vote.

On the final vote, the bill PASSED on a vote of 299-124-1-9.
FOR: 74 Republicans, 225 Democrats
AGAINST: 124 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill along with Blunt, Boehner, Cantor and Terry.

Smith voted against the national security interests of this nation and chose partisan political games instead with the minority leadership.


H.RES.269 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 835) to reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

If you remember from last week, HR 835 had failed to get a two-thirds vote when they tried to pass this bipartisan bill without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. No one objected to the motion, but not enough voted for the bill.

This bill was voted on to set for the rules for consideration. It passed 234-188-11.
FOR: 12 Republicans, 222 Democrats
AGAINST: 187 Republicans, 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 2 Republicans, 9 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.


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

This bill then finally came up on a final vote. It passed 272-150-1-10.
FOR: 45 Republicans, 227 Democrats
AGAINST: 150 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill, along with….you know the drill…those 4 others guys.

So, Smith stands against providing services for Native Americans (in this case, Hawaiians), even though this continued to fulfill agreements made by the US government when Hawaii become a state.

That just sits wrong with me. It reeks too much of the treaties that were signed then broken by the US government with the tribes of mainland America in the 1800’s.


H.RES.274 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1538) to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the management of medical care, personnel actions, and quality of life issues for members of the Armed Forces who are receiving medical care in an outpatient status, and for other purposes.

This bill provides for the rules to consider HR 1538, which would be a tremendous amount of help for our soldiers and their families. You would think there would be no problem with moving forward to consider this bill, right?

Wrong.

It passed, but on a vote of 243-179-11.
FOR: 17 Republicans, 226 Democrats
AGAINST: 179 Republicans
NO VOTE: 5 Republicans, 6 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

This once again tells me that he is joining with the party leadership to try and slow down, or even stop, the continuation of work in the Congress, especially since Democrats are in control. Doesn’t matter if the issue is an important one, or if they somehow succeeded, it would possibly stop the provision of needed services to his constituents. I know I said this earlier, but it does need repeated and stressed.

And to make my point once again this vote was all a political stunt, look at the actual bill under consideration.


H.R.1538 - To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the management of medical care, personnel actions, and quality of life issues for members of the Armed Forces who are receiving medical care in an outpatient status, and for other purposes.

Once it came up for debate, there were 12 Amendments offered. Eleven of them passed by voice vote, 1 passed by roll call UNANIMOUSLY.

When the bill came up for a final roll call vote, IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

So if Smith had objections to considering this bill, why did it pass with out any “NO” votes???


H.RES.275 - Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.

This bill sets forth the rules for voting on the FY2008 Budget.

On Ordering the Previous Question (or what I call the vote to vote), it passed 225-196-12, right along party lines, with the exception of one Democrat.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, it passed 229-197-7, straight party vote.


H.CON.RES.99 - Revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.

There were 3 Amendments put up for a vote:

H.AMDT.82 submitted by Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, “to balance the budget in FY 2012, and produce a total cumulative deficit that is $339 billion lower than that of the President's budget. The amendment also funds essential programs and services, especially in the areas of health care, education and Gulf Coast reconstruction, and provides for additional services for veterans and homeland security, including port and rail security.”

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 115-312-11
FOR: 115 Democrats
AGAINST: 199 Republicans, 113 Democrats
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 8 Democrats
Smith voted against this amendment.

H.AMDT.83 submitted by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, “to balance the budget by FY 2010. It spends $395 billion on defense while projecting complete U.S. military redeployment out of Iraq during 2007. It also projects enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at least $60 billion per year on largely obsolete Cold War weapons systems plus tens of billions more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending identified by the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office (GAO). It repeals the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of taxpayers and cracks down on corporate welfare by eliminating certain tax breaks and corporate loopholes. It includes the SMART Security Alternative to Preemption Doctrine, which shifts some spending and increases other non-military spending to enhance homeland security and fight the root causes of terrorism through 21st century diplomacy and meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB, universal basic education for all). It provides funding for immediate, cost-effective steps to redress global warming and the rapid acceleration of renewable energy development. It fully funds NCLB and IDEA to improve Teacher Corps and job training. It also fully funds the S-CHIP program to ensure every American child eligible is covered for basic health insurance. It ensures whatever federal funding is needed.to provide health care (including mental health care) for all American veterans (including but not limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations). Finally, the substitute increases funding for Community Development Block Grants, Hurricane Katrina relief and reconstruction, community policing, and priority clean-up of leaking underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly half of all Americans.”

The amendmend FAILED on a vote of 81-340-1-16.
FOR: 81 Democrats
AGAINST: 198 Republicans, 142 Democrats
NO VOTE: 4 Republicans, 12 Democrats
Smith voted against this amendment.


H.AMDT.84 submitted by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, “to retain the 2001 and 2003 tax provisions, and provides for one-year extensions of alternative minimum tax [AMT] relief, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the research and experimentation [R&E] tax credit. It sets discretionary spending at $1,079.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 and $5,079.8 billion over 5 years. Defense discretionary spending equals the President's request for 2008 and 2009--including funds for overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Non-defense discretionary spending totals $433.9 billion in 2008, essentially freezing the 2007 level (excluding emergencies). Within this amount, the budget accommodates priority increases above the freeze for Homeland Security, Veterans' Health Care, National Institutes of Health, Community Development Block Grants, and Science and Technology. Additionally, the budget calls for continued reforms to make the government's major entitlements more responsive, flexible, and sustainable--and in the process saves $279 billion over 5 years. Finally, the substitute includes emergency set-aside, Legislative Line Item Veto, PAYGO for spending only, and discretionary spending caps.”

This amendment FAILED on a vote of 160-268-10.
FOR: 159 Republicans, 1 Democrat
AGAINST: 40 Republicans, 228 Democrats
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 7 Democrats
Smith voted FOR this amendment with the usual suspects.

H CON RES 99 then came up for a final vote for passage.

It PASSED on a vote of 216-210-7
FOR: 216 Democrats
AGAINST: 198 Republicans, 12 Democrats
NO VOTE: 3 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Smith voted AGAINST the budget bill.


The last bill for the week:

H.CON.RES.103 - Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

This bill is for the House to Adjourn until 4/16, Senate until 4/10, or sooner if the Speaker or Majority Leader deem it in the national interest. They’re going on Easter Break.

It passed on a vote of 214-192-27
FOR: 4 Republicans, 210 Democrats
AGAINST: 183 Republicans, 9 Democrats
NO VOTE: 14 Republicans, 13 Democrats

Smith voted against this resolution.

The Senate passed their version unanimously by voice vote.

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

Smith stood up on the House Floor a couple times this week. He didn’t say anything new from what we’ve already been hearing him say for over a week through his prescreened press releases (God forbid he has to take tough, direct, face to face questions for anyone!). He just presented many of the same misleading or flat out false “Smithian Factoids” that we have come to expect from him.

On March 27 he stood up to speak during the Annual Budget Debate. Here is an excerpt:

……the majority party's budget promises more than $110 billion in increased mandatory spending in selected issue areas. They address this by creating 10 so-called reserve funds for specific items like health care, education and the farm bill. Agriculture gets a $20 billion ``reserve'' fund to be released at the discretion of the Budget Committee chairman. Sounds like a good deal, well, until you read the details.

This farm bill reserve fund can only be made available if the farm bill would not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus through 2017. In other words, to get the $20 billion, it must be offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This is either a shell game to give the impression of increased funding with no substance, or it is part of a larger plan leading to tax hikes, and I believe it is a part of a larger plan that would lead to the largest tax increase in American history.

As I’ve said before: Welcome to the big leagues. The grown-ups are in town, and if you want to plan for any permanent maintainence of tax breaks, you must find the money elsewhere. Smith has yet to present a single idea….except for the usual idea of rob the poor to pay the rich talking points.


Smith then stood up on March 28 during further debate:

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great concern about the proposed budget and how sustainable it is or it is not.

I would express it concerns me a great deal when I see the fact that 115 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by almost $1,800 in 2011. I think this discussion can be healthy, and I appreciate the fact that the majority does want to keep some of the tax relief, but it needs a budget that comports with that intent.

It concerns me a great deal when I look at the long term when we see absolutely no change in direction from prior spending. We hear that there has been borrowing that has taken place. It has. There is no denying that. But now it seem that the option is to take more tax dollars from the taxpayers, and that is what I think will be damaging to the economy as a whole and certainly the economy of households all across America. When I look at what I see as very damaging to seniors with the dividends tax relief plan that would be cut off, that concerns me a great deal, and when I look at the impact to my State of Nebraska in the increases in taxes, I just don't see where this new budget sets a new direction.

We were told in the Budget Committee several times that we need fundamental reforms in entitlements, and yet this budget presents absolutely no reforms in entitlements.

Mr. Chairman, those are my concerns and they are concerns about the future.

I don’t know about any of you, but I am beyond tired of platitudes and posturing. He can be as “concerned” as he wants. When will he really do something to support correcting his “concerns” beyond pushing a button for a vote or spouting rhetoric???

Most people, myself being one, will at least respect those they disagree with if the other person actually DOES something that supports their beliefs. I disagree with Chuck Hagel most of the time, but I respect him because I at least know where he stands most of the time, and he actually does something other than talk. Smith does a lot of talking, little else.


Smith also filed to “Extensions of Remarks” for placement on the record. Remember, these are not actual floor statements, just statements filed for the record:

On the March 28 Daily Activities:

SPEECH OF
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Army SGT Wayne Cornell, a Nebraska native who lost his life last week. Cornell and another soldier were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle in Baghdad. They were soldiers with the 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry, 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division.

Wayne was on his first tour of duty in Iraq, and during 4 years with the Nebraska Army National Guard, had served twice in Bosnia and once in Afghanistan.
According to his family, Wayne was a strong man--both physically and emotionally. He was a black belt in taekwondo and a loving husband and father.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Wayne's wife, Patricia, who is expecting their third child this July. It is heartbreaking that a man who is often described as someone who ``lived for his wife and kids,'' will not be able to see his children grow and succeed in his footsteps.

We all owe Sergeant Cornell a debt of gratitude we can never repay. His courage, love of family, and strength should set the benchmark for us all.

And on the March 30 record:

SPEECH OF
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of International Women's Month, which this year we celebrated during the month of March.

Throughout the month, we have passed legislation recognizing the impact women have had on our Nation and the world itself. We have heard speeches honoring these individuals who have made life richer and better.

As March comes to a close, I want to individually honor several women from my home state of Nebraska who have made a difference.

I also want to encourage all Members of Congress to help celebrate International Women's Month all year long, through education, support, and service.

Throughout Nebraska's history, we have been fortunate to have had a number of exceptional women call our State home. It is in their name and the names of the exceptional women yet to come that we celebrate this month--and all year long.
Names such as Louise Pound, Willa Cather, and Mari Sandoz spring readily to mind when discussing Nebraska women who have opened minds and imaginations.

But during times of change, women such as children's crusader Grace Abbott and journalist Rheta ChiIde Dorr--the first woman to cover World War I from the front lines--have served as inspirations.

The first American Indian woman doctor was Dr. Susan LaFlesche Picotte. The hospital she built in Walthill is now called the Picotte Center.

Nebraska women have also shouldered leadership for our State. Senator JoAnn Maxey was the first African American to serve as State Senator. Senators Fern Orme and Florence Reynolds also deserve mention.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Governor Kay Orr, who was elected the first Republican woman Governor in the United States, or Rep. Virginia Smith, who set the standard for all House Members, not just from the Third District of Nebraska.

Finally, we should also honor the women who served in our armed forces and who put their lives at risk for our freedom. In particular, let us remember Sgt. 1st Class Linda Ann Tarango-Griess and Staff Sgt. Tricia Jameson, who lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom and who called Nebraska home.

Our country is blessed to have freedoms so many areas of the world unfortunately do not. We have the freedom to succeed, and many women through our history have done just that. Now is the time to encourage the next generation to follow in their footsteps.

I’m not one that really focuses too much on political correctness, but there are a couple off statements in there by Smith. If anything, for a politician, it shows a clear lack of awareness.

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

Smith offered up a new bill as a Sponsor this week:

H.R.1839 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 15-year recovery period for nonresidential real property in rural areas.

The text has not been published on the Thomas site yet. He has made sure to put out his press releases, but I don’t trust them given his ongoing record of making something sound like it’s something its not. I will take a close look at this in a separate posting once the text is published and I can read it.


Smith also added his name on to 1 bill as a Cosponsor;

H.R.971 - To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by making the antitrust laws apply to negotiations between groups of independent pharmacies and health plans and health insurance issuers (including health plans under parts C and D of the Medicare Program) in the same manner as such laws apply to protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act.

This bill was actually introduced back on February 8. He just now added his name on March 27.


An update on another bill he is listed as a Cosponsor on:

H.R.511 : To pledge the faithful support of Congress to members of the United States Armed Forces serving in harm's way.

On 3/20/2007, a motion was filed to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of H.Res. 220. H.Res. 220 provides for the consideration of H.R. 511. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures for further action.

Smith one of 182 names on the petition. This would effectively try to move the consideration of this away from the committee.

I find this ironic. Smith has complained repeatedly that he doesn’t like that too many bills go through too quickly with few or no hearings. He effectively tried to do just that with this petition.

Hypocrisy in action.


So, as of this week, Smith is a Sponsor of 3 bills, a Cosponsor on 26 bills.

Smith has dropped several places for the total number of bills sponsored/cosponsored. He’s now at number 50, with only 3 other Freshman Representatives with a lower number.

For some perspective on this, the Freshman Average is: 2 Sponsored, 60 Cosponsored, 62 total

Top 10:

1. Stephen Cohen, D-TN, 5-211
2. Phil Hare, D-IL, 2-159
3. Mazie Hirono, D-HI, 3-151
4. Hank Johnson, D-GA, 4-130
5. Keith Ellison, D-MN, 0-126
6. Patrick Murphy, D-PA, 1-94
7. Chris Carney, D-PA, 6-90
8. Betty Sutton, D-OH, 2-88
9. Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH, 2-83
10. Yvette Clark, D-NY, 0-83

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

Finally, this was in the Kearney Hub:

Smith to speak at Wood River, Kearney, Minden

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Adrian Smith will speak to students, address economic development and agricultural issues and visit a military subcontractor during appearances next week in Wood River, Kearney and Minden.

The schedule for the 3rd District congressman includes:

Wednesday

12:55 p.m., Wood River High School. Smith will speak to students about issues important to Nebraska. He will be the guest of WRHS senior Jackie Kumke, who invited him to speak to the class.

2:30 p.m., Kearney Area Chamber of Commerce at 1007 Second Ave. Smith will meet with local business leaders about economic development and business issues.

4 p.m., Kearney chamber building. Smith will meet with area ag producers for a roundtable discussion on the upcoming Farm Bill and other agricultural issues.

5:45 p.m. at 1046 E. Ninth St. in Minden. Smith will tour Royal Plastics Co., which manufactures components for U.S. military aircraft and other equipment.

Thursday

9:30 a.m., Founder’s Hall at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Smith will deliver a speech to UNK political science students.

©Kearney Hub 2007

I would encourge ANYONE that can attend any of this to go, and make sure to take along any hardhitting questions you feel need to be asked of Adrian Smith. He is your representative. I would love it if I got back any reports on what he said, or most likely, avoided answering.

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

In summary, Adrian Smith had a very revealing week. He voted against the protection of animals and tougher penalties for those involved. He voted against national security and the implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations. He voted against upholding agreements that provided the agreed services to Native Hawaiians. He voted to try and stall debate on a bill that provided needed services to our soldiers and their families. He voted against a budget that actually makes the tough decisions to get spending back under control.

As my husband said, he hates the law, hates the soldiers, hates our security, and he hates your dog.

That last one is the most unforgivable!