Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

In October, Congress passed H.R.1462, the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. At the time of passage, Adrian Smith put out a press release making a big claim in the very title:

Smith Secures Language in House-Passed Platte River Recovery Bill

Within the press released, it stated:

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) today announced the House of Representatives has passed the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, H.R. 1462, unanimously. Introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), and cosponsored by Smith, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to engage in the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.

Smith has a history of not acknowledging all those involved in passing a bill. While he acknowledged the sponsor was Mark Udall (a change from the first release earlier in the year where he gave the wrong name), he did not acknowledge all the other Representatives, or even state governors, that were just as much a part of the bill.

Along with Smith, Representatives Jeff Fortenberry (NE), John Salazar (CO), and Lee Terry were signed on at the time of introduction with Mark Udall. Soon after, Representatives Barbara Cubin (WY), Diana DeGette (CO) and Ed Permutter (CO) also signed on.

But the work on this bill didn't even start with any of these Representatives.

In Mark Udall's press release, he takes a completely different approach. While he doesn't present every name of every representative, he still acknowledges that this bill is a result of a lot of work over a long period of time by many people:

Washington, DC – A bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, that would protect the water rights of farmers and several growing cities that use the Platte River’s water, while still complying with the Endangered Species Act passed the House floor today on a voice vote. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.

The Platte River Agreement bill, H.R. 1462, authorizes funding for the Interior Department to carry out its responsibilities under an agreement with Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. The agreement’s purpose is to assist in the conservation and recovery of four endangered and threatened species, including the whooping crane and the pallid sturgeon, in a way that will allow existing water-related activities to continue and some additional water-related activities to occur. This agreement would not involve the creation of Federal water rights or require the grant of water rights to Federal entities.........

“This agreement is the result of 14 years of hard work and negotiations that culminated last year when the governors of Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska joined Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne joined together in signing the agreement,” said Udall.

Now to the next statement that Smith makes:

Smith worked to ensure the bill’s accompanying committee report contained language instructing federal agencies to work cooperatively with all relevant interests, including the affected local communities, as it relates to the Program’s goals and how activities may affect landowners.

“Throughout this process, I wanted to make sure landowners’ concerns were met and their questions were answered. Today, we took an important step in this longstanding issue. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to see this legislation provides certainty for farmers, ranchers, businesses, and communities in my district,” said Smith.

This is another of the "I" statements that I've pointed out many times before that Smith is prone to make. What I mean by that is Smith taking credit for something he was not responsible for. He's basically saying "I and I alone secured language regarding landowners". That would be false.

Not even Mark Udall makes "I" statements with his press release, only stating that this bill:

"...would be modeled after a somewhat similar program that has helped the recovery of several endangered species of fish in the upper basin of the Colorado River. I have strongly supported that program because it has enabled us in Colorado and other participating states to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while allowing continued development and use of water for other purposes as well."

He's not taking claim of doing all the work, but stating his support.



Now for the full story on this bill.

H.R. 1492 was not the first version of the bill.

The first bill was S. 3611, introduced in the 109th Congress. Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado was the Sponsor, with Senator Ken Salazar, also of Colorado, being the cosponsor. The bill was referred to committee in June 2006 and never went any further. In 2007, Mark Udall stepped up and resubmitted the bill, this time in the House.

When you compare the wording of the two versions, you find they are the same bill. There is no change. It's a result of many years of work and the terms have been made clear. This was all done well before Adrian Smith came into the picture.

But Smith talked about the Committee Report. Smith would not have been a participant in the mark-up hearing that produced this report. Prior to this meeting, there had been other hearings, of course.

During a subcommittee hearing, Nebraska's Director of Natural Resources, Ann Bleed, stated in her formal testimony:

The Program has established an organizational structure that will ensure appropriate state and federal government and stakeholder involvement in the implementation of the Program. The Program will utilize an incremental approach to land and water management that places an appropriate and heavy reliance on the development of sound science through an adaptive management program. This adaptive management program has developed extensive protocols for testing hypotheses and management techniques to insure that the efforts of program participants will produce the desired results.

She also stated:

In summary, the negotiations to develop this program were long and arduous. The time, land, water and financial commitments by the States, water and power districts, environmental interests and the people in the basin are very substantial. There are a lot of future challenges that the Program must overcome. However, when the Governor’s of all three States signed the Program agreement, the States attested to the premise that cooperation and collaboration will provide a much higher likelihood of protecting habitat and providing regulatory certainty for all involved than any other alternative. For this reason I urge you to enable the federal government to be a partner in this collaborative effort.

In the Committee Report that accompanied the bill, it stated the following:

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1462 was introduced on March 9, 2007 by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water and Power. On April 26, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 12, 2007, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. The bill was approved by unanimous consent and forwarded to the Full Committee on Natural Resources. On October 10, 2007, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano offered an amendment to clarify Sec. 103, at the request of the Administration. The bill, as amended, was agreed to by unanimous consent and was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives.

Then in the Section-by-Section Analysis, it states:

Sec. 102 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and, in cooperation with the Governance Committee, to carry out any projects or activities that are designated for implementation during the Program's first 13 years (First Increment). The Secretary is also authorized in this section, in cooperation with the Governance Committee, to (1) enter into agreements with federal and non-federal groups; (2) acquire interests in land, water, and facilities from willing sellers; (3) transfer acquired interests; and (5) accept or provide grants.

The Committee is aware that the success of the Program is dependent on a number of factors, including a workable, results-oriented and efficient Adaptive Management Program and consistent communication with stakeholders. As such, the Committee expects the Governance Committee to work cooperatively with all relevant interests, including the affected local communities, as it relates to the how the Program's goals are being met and how activities may affect landowners. Since the States retain the ability to withdraw from the agreement at any time for any reason, the Committee strongly encourages the Governance Committee to hold public forums regularly to help stakeholders and the general public better understand the Program's objectives and impacts.

Smith could try to claim that he was responsible for the "landowners" part, but if you look closer at the bill, and what the "Governance Committee" is, you find that could not be the case. The definition is:

(3) GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE- The term `Governance Committee' means the governance committee established under the Agreement and composed of members from the States, the Federal Government, environmental interests, and water users.

That was an original part of the bill.



SUMMARY

Smith did cosponsor a necessary bill, but that is as far as it goes. He had no greater role than anyone else. The bill itself was one written up in the last Congress. The concerns about the impact of this program on everyone, including landowners, was always present and steps were taken to try and address all concerns upon agreement by all three states.

It was not SMITH that "secured language" in the bill or the committee report, but rather the countless others over the last decade that addressed the matter long before Smith came on board.

It was a bill also set up to meet the standards of the Endangered Species Act.

Just remember, prior to going to Congress, Smith's primary comments on the matter:

We talked about the Platte River and how Lake McConaughy is low and is projected to stay low. I asked if he felt the Federal Government should get involved and help pay farmers to not irrigate.

He felt that would be a short-term fix. “I believe many of the problems are caused by the Endangered Species Act. The Act is one of the biggest unfunded mandates, and it is bad for agriculture and the municipalities.” He feels that the water use on the Platte is best dealt with on the local level.

Looks like it was dealt with at the local, state, and federal level, as it should be.

Smith’s 2006 Financial Disclosure Report

Starting approximately 6 months ago, I began requesting copies of reports that Adrian Smith is required to file. These reports are:

- Financial Disclosure Report
- Franked Materials (Mass Mailings)
- Gift and Travel Filings
- Foreign Travel Reports and Expenditures

Over the first 4 months, between phone calls, emails, and even a drop-in at the local office, I probably made between 20 and 30 requests. To date, I have received and heard nothing.

To recap, these reports are available at the Legislative Resource Center in Washington, DC. To get copies of these reports, one has to go in and request the copies. If, like me, you are 1500 miles away, that office has stated that a request can be made for copies of these reports from the member of Congress representing you. Hence, the many requests directly to Adrian Smith’s office.

As the wait continues, we finally have access to one of the reports - the Financial Disclosure Report. The site OpenSecrets.org has obtained a copy of this report and posted it on their website:

1/1/2006 to 5/15/2006 Financial Disclosure Report

Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2006

I went over and compared both reports. Some differences really don’t mean anything. Others are just interesting. I present these things and will let the readers decide what to make of them.


1. The address used on the first report was the office he’s used for his campaigning and real estate work. It’s the building his father owns. On the second report, he gave his home address.

2. On the question: “Did you hold any reportable positions on or before the date of filing in the current calendar year or in the prior two years?”, Smith marked “NO” on the first report, but “YES” on the second report. He later reports those positions in Section VIII.

3. He listed NO income from Buyers Realty for the 1/1 to 5/15 time period, but on the second report, he listed $1,249 from Buyers Realty. This indicates he may have been making some property sales between 5/15 and 12/31 of last year.

4. Under “Assets and Unearned Income” Smith lists a Vacant Lot in Ogallala, NE (to view property information, click the link, and then click “I Agree”). The official records showed this property to be in the name of David Neal, Adrian M, and Aaron M. Smith. Both reports show the value of the land as $15,001-50,000. The Keith County Assessors site shows the assessed value from 2006 to be $10,360, which then increased to $15,000 for 2007.

5. In the first report, he showed NO rent income for his Lincoln Condo. For the 2nd Report, he showed up to $2,500 in income from rent. Maybe he rented it out month to month, and short term. Further inspection of public records shows this condo was purchased in 1992 (click “Public Login“ to view these records), about the time Smith was working as a Legislative Page and an Intern in the Governor’s office. It was registered as being owned by David Neal, Joann and Adrian Smith. It was sold at the end of last December. I’ll get into why I’m pointing this out at the end of this report.

6. In the first report, under the section entitled “Positions”, Smith listed nothing. In the second report, Smith listed 3 things: Board Member for the Panhandle Area Health Education Council, Real Estate Agent for Buyers Reality, and State Senator for the Nebraska Unicameral. Not sure why he failed to report this the first time around.


To go back to the condo in Lincoln, I started to just speculate a bit.

Smith’s parents helped him to purchase the condo in 1992 (by the way, I have no problem with that part because it’s not unusual for parents to help their kids to get started). To PURCHASE a Condo was an interesting move, given Smith was only a Page and an Intern, both temporary positions. They then kept the condo while Smith went back to Gering.

But then you start looking at some of Smith’s statements throughout the last couple years. Many times he’s talked about how influenced he was by Ronald Reagan. Most recently, he added (in front of a crowd of veterans in Gothenburg):

Stories shared by a grandfather about World War II helped motivate Third District Congressman Adrian Smith into seeking public office “more than anything else.”

Then the most interesting comments are found in the article that was written when Smith did a September 2006 fundraiser at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University:

As a high school senior, Smith came to Liberty for College for a Weekend. Though he had never lived in Virginia before, he made the step to attend college at Liberty. He went with Light Ministries on a missions trip to Brazil and worked for the CSER office. After his first year, he had a desire to work in his state government, but in order to become a page in local legislature, students had to attend college in Nebraska.

When he graduated, he entered into the political arena, as a member of the Gering City Council.

In 1998, after four years with the city council, Smith ran in the Nebraska Unicameral......

“I hope to be in the House for a good long time,” Smith said before the gathering. “I want to get elected and stay there until retirement.”

The Nebraska GOP, when praising their candidate last year, stated:

Around the Scottsbluff-Gering area, Smith and his parents, Neal and JoAnn, are widely known in political circles.

Neal Smith sells insurance and is a former chairman of the Scotts Bluff County GOP, while JoAnn Smith is secretary of the Nebraska Republican Party.

(On a side note, notice the beginning of that article, and the fact they note he has a picture with “such famous Republicans as Strom Thurmond”. If you recall, Thurmond ran for President in 1948 as a segregationist or “Dixiecrat“. He opposed racial integration.)

So, here’s the speculation: When you add all this together, you get a picture of someone who’s path in life was probably laid out from day one, and who’s family had the influence and positions to make it happen. Purchase the Condo and keep it ready because the plan was to get Adrian in the State Legislature. Whether a person finds that admirable, or whether they find that disturbing, that is their choice.

House Actions 10/29/2007 - 11/2/2007

This week in the House was one where Smith decided to pretty much vote against anything put forth. They were, for the most part, not bills that usually garner a lot of attention, but nonetheless are very important in what the are trying to achieve.

To be nice, I’ll present the good things first. Smith joined the rest of the House to vote for the final version of the Internet Tax Freedom bill, and it was signed into law by President Bush. He decided to cosponsor a resolution that gives a pat on the back to agencies that work for the benefit of children in foster care. He also signed onto a bill from July, that is sponsored by a great up-and-coming Freshman, Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas. The bill would open the door further on generic drugs for those on Medicare. Finally, he decided to sign on as a cosponsor on a bill that would make it easier for active duty military to gain access to educational benefits.

On the other hand, Smith opposed a lot things this week simply by his votes. Once again, he had no amendments to offer, and he had no real statements regarding any bills he opposed. He also voted against approving the day’s Journal the two times that Repubilcans called for a roll call vote on the approval.

He voted against the National Dam Safety Program Act. This act would assist states in repairing publicly owned dams that are below minimum safety standards. Remember how that bridge collapsed in Minnesota, and how the levy’s broke in New Orleans? What do you think would happen if, say, Kingsley Dam was found to be unsafe, wasn’t repaired right away because funds weren’t available, and it ended up breaking down? How many millions of gallons of water is in Lake McConaughy, anyway? There was no opposition voiced during the debate, even.

He voted against the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act. This would provide more opportunities to small business owners who also happen to be service-disabled veterans. It would be required that they get a higher priority when it came to contracting federal procurements.

He voted against the Trade and Globalization Act. The bill would provide support for people who’s employment is adversely affected due to trade issues. A much weaker Republican version was put forth, that wouldn’t have provided anywhere near the needed assistance. Smith voted for that version, but not the final version.

He voted against the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. It tightened environmental and other impact standards for the development and reclamation of mines.

Finally, he made sure to get a statement out calling on the Veterans Administration to stop banning a flag-folding recitation during funerals. The reality is that a statement had been put out by the VA when a family complained about the ceremony being conducted wrong. They clarified that it wasn’t banned, but wasn’t automatic. Family could request and provide their own speaker. Also, the Director at Ft. McPherson here in Nebraska just happened to be quoted as saying, “It’s never been an issue here.”

But, hey, Yo Adrian was right on top of things!!



ROLL CALL VOTES

H.R.3224 - To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to establish a program to provide grant assistance to States for the rehabilitation and repair of deficient dams.

Known as the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007, it would require FEMA to set up a program that would provide grant assistance to states for use in repairing and/or reinforcing publicly owned dams that don’t meet minimum safety standards, and may post a safety risk. It lays out the procedures of such programs.

Sponsors of the bill explained that there are about 80,000 dams in the U.S. and that at least 3,500 are considered unsafe or deficient. The Federal costs would be capped at 65%.

During debate, not one speaker got up to speak up in opposition of the bill. There were both Republicans and Democrats stating support for it.

A motion was made to suspend the rules and pass the bill as it was amended.

H R 3224 was PASSED on a vote of 263-102-67
FOR: 202 Democrats, 61 Republicans
AGAINST: 102 Republicans
NO VOTE: 30 Democrats, 37 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL. There was no reason given, no reason even apparent as to WHY. Even Nebraska’s other Representatives, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, voted for the bill.

HOWEVER, the Republican leadership that has been working very hard to find every way possible to try and stonewall, delay or prevent progress on legislation voted against the bill as well. Roy Blunt, and Eric Cantor voted NO, while John Boehner didn’t even vote. Yet more proof of Smith’s ongoing pattern of voting for the party instead of the people.


H.RES.773 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3867) to update and expand the procurement programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

This sets for the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 3867.

On “ordering the previous question”, the vote was party-line with Republicans all voting against it. However, the resolution then passed on a voice vote.


H.R.3678 - To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

This had already passed the House and had gone to the Senate. This vote was to Supend the Rules and Agree to the Senate Amendment.

H.R. 3678 was PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

President Bush signed it on 10/31/2007, becoming Public Law 110-108.


H.R.3867 - To update and expand the procurement programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

Known as the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act, this bill would require federal procurement opportunities for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, or those located in historically underutilized business zones. It would prohibit approval of loans until a background check determined the applicant does not lack business integrity. There would be some increases in the limits of loans so some businesses. Various other items were included that related to the goals of the bill.

There were 10 amendments offered up for consideration. Of those, 9 were passed by a voice vote, and one was withdrawn without objection.

A Motion To Recommit was then made to report back “forthwith”. The amendment to be added would strike section 101(b), which states:

SEC. 101. EXPANDING PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
(b) HUBZone- Section 31(b)(2)(B) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking `shall' and inserting `may'.

Those in support of this amendment stated it would put back a mandatory competition requirement in HUBZones, and continue helping to redevelope low-income areas.

Those opposed stated that keeping the requirement in place would take away contracts from veterans with service disabilities. A letter from the American Legion was presented voicing support for keeping Sec. 101(b) in place as presented prior to the motion.

The Motion to Recommit FAILED on a vote of 177-240-15. Only 14 Republicans joined the Democrats in opposing the motion. Smith voted FOR the motion.

H.R. 3867 then PASSED on a vote of 334-80-18.
FOR: 225 Democrats, 109 Republicans
AGAINST: 80 Republicans
NO VOTE: 7 Democrats, 11 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL. So did his usual Republican leadership.

SO, a bill that would support disabled veterans, who become disabled in the service of their county, was OPPOSED BY SMITH. This is the same guy who has no problem wrapping himself in “think of the troops” mantras when it helps him to gain points with Nebraska veterans.


H.RES.781 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3920) to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers and firms, and for other purposes.

This would set for the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 3920.

As usual, on both “ordering the previous question” and “agreeing to the resolution”, it passed on party-line votes. Smith voted against the resolution.


APPROVING THE PREVIOUS DAYS JOURNAL

At this point, Republicans called for a recorded vote on approving the previous days journal.

The JOURNAL was APPROVED on a vote of 222-190-2-18, nearly party line.
Smith voted AGAINST APPROVAL.


H.R.3920 - To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers and firms, and for other purposes.

Known as the Trade and Globalization Act of 2007, it would allow the filing of a petition with the Secretary of Labor for certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) by adversely affected workers in a service sector firm, a public agency, or subdivision. It revised eligibility requirements, prohibits TAA program benefits from being provided to illegal immigrants, would increase the tax credit for health insurance costs of certain TAA pension recipients, prevents a lapse of health care coverage for TAA workers and their families, and other things. Unemployment Insurance is also updated.

There was one amendment offered up for consideration.


H.AMDT.875 - Amendment sought to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs for workers, firms and farmers for 5 years. Restructure the TAA to increase training options while retaining the current two years of income support for TAA for workers program participants who remain unemployed and train full-time. Increase the federal share of monthly TAA participant premiums for the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) from 65% today to 70% and continues HCTC. Allow States to apply for waivers of unemployment compensation program rules. Expand the new markets tax credit to benefit firms and workers in local communities impacted by trade, globalization, and other causes of job loss. Extend Workforce Investment Act (WIA) employment and training programs, creates a consolidated funding stream, and increases State and local flexibility. Provide for collection of Unemployment Insurance overpayments.

This amendment would basically substitute this version for the bill that was put for debate. It would completely rewrite it. Supporters felt it was better than the version offered up.

Rep. Jim McDermott voiced the reasons for opposing this substitution:

Democrats want to help more workers who lose their jobs because of trade, especially workers providing services. The Republican substitute says no to helping those workers.

Democrats want to assure more dislocated workers have an opportunity to receive training. The Republican substitute would, instead, cap the amount of training any worker can receive, not to go on and finish a program.

Democrats want to assure health care coverage is affordable for workers losing their jobs by paying 85 percent of their premium. The Republican substitute said, well, 65 wasn't enough, but we'll give you 70. So again, they cut the workers short.

Democrats want a better wage insurance program to help trade-affected workers who are reemployed in jobs that pay less than their prior employment. The Republican substitute guts the program as it presently exists and instead only provides a benefit to those at the very lowest wage jobs.

Republicans don't care if workers have a chance to get a living-wage job; they want to force people back to minimum-wage jobs. Democrats want to help States improve unemployment insurance for all workers who are denied unfairly their benefits, especially women. The Republican substitute goes in the opposite direction by allowing the administration to approve waivers from States that could deny more jobless workers unemployment insurance.

In short, the Democrats want to help workers navigate the global economy. The Republican substitute, on the other hand, tells workers, well, you're still, more or less, on your own.

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 196-226-10, nearly party-line, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans to vote for it, and 10 Republicans voting with Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted FOR the amendment.


H.R. 3920 was then PASSED on a vote of 264-157-11
FOR: 226 Democrats, 38 Republicans
AGAINST: 2 Democrats, 155 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Democrats, 7 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST this bill.


H.R.3043 - Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

This was a Motion to Instruct the Conferees on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

It had come up that Democrats were going to look at combining Appropriations bills for final vote. Republicans made a motion to instruct the conferees to NOT do that. House Appropriations Chairman, David Obey, opposed their motion, making the following statement on the floor:

Let me simply say, Madam Speaker, that what the gentleman is saying is that he wants to prevent us from doing something on this bill which his party did 56 times in the time that they controlled this House over the past 12 years, and I don't find that especially persuasive.

He also wants to prevent us from producing more than one bill at a time, and yet the President signed omnibus appropriation bills 27 times since he's been President, when they came from his own party. Now, because one might come from the Democratic Party, he wants to make a Federal case out of it. I don't think people are going to be very impressed with that either.

I find it very interesting that out of all of the motions that the minority could have offered, they haven't offered a single motion, and nothing in this motion today would in any way reduce by one dime any of the funds that we appropriated in the Labor-Health-Education bill. They argue that the bill is bloated, and yet when we give them an opportunity to offer motions to reduce spending for any specific item they don't take advantage of it.

That is exactly the same experience we had when the subcommittee considered the bill, and in fact, virtually every Republican motion and every Republican speech was on behalf of an effort to increase funding for a number of items, whether it be vocational education, which I agree with, or whether it be Pell Grants or whether it be special education.

So I find it interesting that after all of that rhetoric about so-called bloated funding for this bill they choose to argue an arcane process issue.

All they're really saying is, when you consider Labor-Health, don't even think of moving forward with Military Construction, don't even think of moving forward with Defense, don't even think of addressing the problem of California wildfires, don't even think of adding additional funding for MRAPs. Well, if they're comfortable with that, fine. I don't think we ought to let procedural theology get in the way of doing what's needed for American families and American veterans and American fighting men and women.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 191-222-19, on party-lines.


H.RES.780 - Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes.

This sets forth the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 2262.

Once again, passed on 2 votes, both party-line, with Republicans voting against moving forward.


APPROVING THE PREVIOUS DAYS JOURNAL

Once again, Republicans demanded a recorded vote on the approval of the previous day’s journal.

The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 227-187-1-17. It was nearly party line, with all but 18 Republicans voting AGAINST approval. Smith voted AGAINST approval as well.


H.R.2262 - To modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes.

This bill is known as the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. It sets forth requirements regarding lands that are open to location, and environmental protection standards, among other things. In other words, it’s a mining bill.

There were 6 amendments offered for debate. Of those, 3 were passed and one failed by voice vote. The remaining 2 received roll call votes.


H.AMDT.877 - To strike the definition of `undue degradation' in the legislation.

Those in support of this amendment said the new definition would reinstate a “Clinton-era” change to regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands that was rescinded in 2001. They say it’s too vague.

Those opposed to this amendment state it would completely gut fundamental environmental safeguards that were put into the legislation. ‘Undue Degradation’ under the bill is defined as: “irreparable harm to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental resources on public lands that cannot be effectively mitigated.''


The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 173-244-20. There were 19 Republicans that joined Democrats in defeating the amendment.
Smith voted FOR it.


H.AMDT.880 - To strike section 517--Mineral materials.

Supporters stated this amendment was necessary to keep common goods affordable. To keep it would see an increase in costs for glass, ceramics, paper, plastics, rubber, detergents, etc.

Those opposed stated that the American people receive a return through the sales contracts.

The section deals with how to handle “locatable” minerals, and how “uncommon” minerals are handled.

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 175-240-22. Only 16 Republicans joined Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted FOR the amendment.


Republicans then made a Motion to Recommit the bill, asking that the following amendment be added and reported back “Promptly” (remember, that term, in this context, would actually kill the bill):

At the end of section 102(a) add the following:

(6) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.--No royalty under this section shall apply to any mineral that is used in the manufacture of any technology used for the production of solar energy or nuclear energy.

At the end of the bill add the following:

SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, certifies that nothing in this Act would result in a loss of jobs in the United States associated with mining-related activities to which this Act applies.

I have to point out Rep. Pearce’s statement in introducing this. It’s just laughable:

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, this is an honest, straightforward and commonsense motion which should be accepted unanimously. Its acceptance would help restore America's confidence in this body.

It’s NOT a commonsense motion, it would not restore faith in the House, and, if adopted, would kill the bill immediately.

Democrats pointed out that the motion (report back promptly) was really to kill the bill. As to the text, it would actually cut the royalties coming to the American people

The Motion to Recommit FAILED on a vote of 170-240-22. Only 15 Republicans joined the Democrats to defeat the motion.


H R 2262 was then PASSED on a vote of 244-166-22
FOR: 220 Democrats, 24 Republicans
AGAINST: 3 Democrats, 163 Republicans
NO VOTE: 9 Democrats, 13 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

______________________________________

The remaining bills with recorded votes were passed with little or no opposition:


H.RES.573 - Recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes.
H.RES.747 - Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali.
H.J.RES.58 - Expressing support for designation of the month of October 2007 as "Country Music Month" and to honor country music for its long history of supporting America's armed forces and its tremendous impact on national patriotism.
H.R.3307 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 570 Broadway in Bayonne, New Jersey, as the "Dennis P. Collins Post Office Building".
H.R.3446 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 202 East Michigan Avenue in Marshall, Michigan, as the "Michael W. Schragg Post Office Building".
H.RES.778 - Honoring the first responders and supporting the victims of the Southern California wildfires.


FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith made the following 2 statements on the floor this week:

IN SUPPORT OF A PERMANENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a permanent research and development tax credit. We are the strongest Nation on Earth, in large part because of the innovation inspired through research and development. This has been a driving force through our history, leading us to discoveries which add convenience, comfort and productivity to our lives.

In Nebraska, now more than ever, our rural businesses grow when people are willing to face the uncertainty and risks which others find daunting. In our increasingly competitive global economy, it is essential we ensure there is a permanent, meaningful incentive for all businesses to invest in research and development.

We live in a world with limitless innovation, and I look forward to seeing what the future will bring from further research and development.

COMMENDING DANIEL JACOB WOODHEAD

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend an outstanding student athlete, Daniel Jacob Woodhead, senior tailback for the Chadron State College Eagles, who shattered the NCAA all-division record for career rushing yards on October 6, 2007. On that day, Danny carried the ball 34 times for 208 yards, bringing his career rushing total to 7,441 yards, and has added 114 yards since.

He also holds the NCAA all-division record for most rushing yards in a season at 2,756 in 2006 and has 19 games in which he gained 200 yards rushing or more, a record in itself.

Danny is a First Team Academic All-American, a consensus All-American, and recipient of the Harlon Hill Trophy, awarded to the outstanding player of the year in NCAA Division II football.

I commend Daniel Jacob Woodhead who, through his outstanding achievements of distinction, has brought great honor to himself, his family, his coaches and teammates, Eagles fans, Chadron State College, and the State of Nebraska.

Smith then had the following 3 statements placed in the House record. Notice the first 2 were dated for October 22, 2007, but weren‘t submitted for the record until October 30th:

PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND PATHFINDER MODIFICATION AUTHORIZATION ACT
(Extensions of Remarks - October 30, 2007)

SPEECH OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman RAHALL, Ranking Member YOUNG, Subcommittee Chairwoman NAPOLITANO, Subcommittee Ranking Member MCMORRIS RODGERS and all of the staff for their work on the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and Pathfinder Modification Authorization Act.

It is encouraging to see this longstanding issue finally reach a settlement. After years of study and review by the states, Federal Government, water users, land owners, and other interested parties, the time has come to resolve this matter once and for all.

I cosponsored this legislation as part of the consensus to recognize the reality of the challenges before us with collective decision-making and cooperation. However, this agreement does impact some of our farmers and ranchers, and we must continue to be cognizant of the impact of the Endangered Species Act. As we move forward with the implementation of the Program, positive and negative economic impacts must be assessed and considered in order to minimize adverse effects of the recovery efforts.

I support moving forward with this legislation as the first step of many to protect and recover species and provide long-term water use for our communities.

I'll have more on that matter at a later post, because Smith has tried to take credit for things in this bill that were not his to take credit for. Like I said...for a later post.

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CHEMISTRY WEEK
(Extensions of Remarks - October 30, 2007)

SPEECH OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, National Chemistry Week recognizes the importance of chemistry to our modem society. Chemistry is vital to the economy and the success of the Third District of Nebraska. Nebraska is known for its food, fiber, and fuel industries--all of which rely on chemistry. Production of ethanol from corn and biomass, manufacture of biodiesel, and creation of safe and effective agricultural chemicals are all possible because of chemistry and chemists.

More chemists are needed to continue these innovations that are so important to our rural economy. We have bright, young people in the Third District known for their great work ethic and Nebraska values, and who are sought after for jobs all over the world. We need to encourage our young people to succeed in careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, also known as STEM careers. They are needed in Nebraska and all over the United States. More outreach is needed to encourage the next generation to consider chemistry and other STEM careers.

Students in chemistry clubs in Nebraska's Third District will perform outreach activities during National Chemistry Week. Students at Hastings College in Hastings, Nebraska, will give away ice cream and information on chemistry at the Student Union this week. The Chemistry Club at the University of Nebraska-Kearney will have a ``Chemistry in Action'' demonstration table in the Student Union and will visit area middle and elementary schools where they will perform experiments for students, including ``pink slime'' and liquid nitrogen demonstrations. I want to commend these budding chemists for reaching out to their fellow students and for introducing children to the joys of chemistry. That is what National Chemistry Week is all about.

WHAT MAKES NEBRASKA GREAT
(Extensions of Remarks - November 01, 2007)

SPEECH OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, today I rise not in honor of one person, but of many. Today I rise in honor of a small slice of what makes Nebraska great.

When Gary Lindstrom, a farmer outside of Holdrege, Nebraska, was sidelined by a heart attack during harvest season, his neighbors and fellow Nebraskans showed what it truly means to be a community.

Farmers from Wilcox, Holdrege, Loomis, Ash Grove, Funk, and Ragan, eight combines, 12 grain cars and 20 trucks rallied to take care of a friend who was in need.
I think one of the volunteers, Wade Johnson of Holdrege, said it best when he said, ``It's what we all do when somebody needs some help. You help out.''

I was touched by the generosity of the community. For Mr. Lindstrom, I thank everyone who lent a helping hand. And I thank all Nebraskans who come to the aid of their neighbors whenever and wherever it may be.

It's was nice of Adrian to submit this for the record. But the story he told is not a new one. Does he realize that things like this happen quite regularly in farming communities? That's the great thing about Nebraskans: They will work together when the need arises. I've seen this very scenario play out time and time again.


BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith again introduced no new bills as a sponsor (he’s only submitted 6 for the year).

He signed on to 4 bills as a cosponsor:


H.RES.789 - Honoring public child welfare agencies, nonprofit organizations and private entities providing services for foster children.

This resolution was introduced on November 1, 2007, with Smith signed on as one of the original cosponsors.


H.R.866 - To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure the right of employees to a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.

The Secret Ballot Protection Act would make it so employers don’t have to recognize or collectively bargain with any labor organization that has not been selected by a majority of employees through a secret ballot election. It’s a pro-business bill.

The bill was introduced on 2/7/2007. Smith just added his name on 10/31/2007.


H.R.3140 - To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure and foster continued beneficiary access to generic drugs under the Medicaid Program by setting pharmacy reimbursement based on retail acquisition cost and to promote the use of generic drugs.

This bill, which is a good one, was introduced by our neighbor to the south, Freshman Democrat Nancy Boyda of Kansas. (On a side note, Nancy has been doing an excellent job her first term in Congress, working on a lot of issues that affect the daily lives of her constituents.)

The bill was introduced on 7/24/2007. Smith signed up on 10/31/2007.


H.R.3882 - To amend title 38, United States Code, to change the length of the obligated period of service on active duty required for receiving certain education benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

Former fellow Nebraskan, and “carpetbagger” to Minnesota, Rep. Tim Walz, introduced this bill. It would open up educational opportunities to more active duty soldiers.

The bill was introduced on 10/17/2007. Smith signed up on 10/31/2007.


IN THE NEWS

These were a few of the news articles this week.

First, just another of the long list of examples who reporter Robert Pore, the “political” reporter at the Grand Island Independent, likes to rely simply on the press releases from Smith. I can’t thing off the top of my head of one instance where it was apparent Pore actually decided to ask a follow up question of Smith or challenged anything he said.

GI Independent: Nelson has questions for new ag secretary nominee, Ed Schafer

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said that, with the Farm Bill having passed the House and awaiting action in the Senate, he's confident that Schafer will be a "great resource as this process moves forward."

"I look forward to Gov. Schafer's quick confirmation so we can focus on re-authorizing the Farm Bill, as well as other important issues, including FSA (Farm Service Agency) closures in the 3rd District," Smith said.

After seeing that, now look at Smith’s actual press release:

Smith Statement on Gov. Schafer’s Nomination for Secretary of Agriculture

“With the Farm Bill having passed the House and awaiting action in the Senate, and I’m confident he will be a great resource as this process moves forward. I look forward to Governor Shafer’s quick confirmation so we can focus on reauthorizing the Farm Bill, as well as other important issues, including FSA closures in the Third District,” Smith said.

Smith also released a Statement on the Death of Peter Hoagland, a former Representative for Nebraska’s 2nd District.

Smith then decided to again participate in making something an issue that really ended up being a misunderstanding. While it could upset some families, we find it wasn’t as big of an issue as it was made out to be, as at least one reporter was able to find..

Smith Calls on VA to Allow Flag-Folding Recitation at Vets’ Funerals

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) today added his name to a letter to Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield to reverse the ban by the National Cemetery Administration on the recitation of a common flag-folding ceremony during funerals. The reading details the significance of every fold of the American flag as it is being prepared for survivors.

The policy prohibits national cemetery employees and volunteers from reciting the description of the 13 folds, and the ban extends to Veterans Service Organizations like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which often provide volunteers to assume flag-folding duties and the playing of Taps at veterans’ funerals.

But three news agencies in Western Nebraska reported what happened:

North Platte Bulletin:

A protest against a patriotic, religious flag-folding recital at funerals has in turn caused national protest, and the Veterans Administration acted Tuesday to clarify the issue

The recitation can be used at funerals if family members request it, the VA said Tuesday.

The VA hopes that assurance will quiet uproar over the flag-folding recital.

In a statement distributed last month, the National Cemetery Administration prohibited employees and volunteers from automatically reciting the description of the 13 folds. Nebraska’s Ft. McPherson near Maxwell, a national cemetery, falls under the ban.

The ban came from a recent complaint at Riverside National Cemetery in California, after the volunteer said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were gods, instead of referring to the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, Associated Press writer Erica Werner reported.

The ban sparked uproar from veterans groups and Republican representatives.

To clarify, the VA said the recital is not part of an official Defense Department funeral ceremony, but can be read at the request of a family member.

KDUHTV:

PUBLIC OUTCRY HAS PERSUADED THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN'S AFFAIRS TO CLARIFY A DIRECTIVE LIMITING THE USE OF A RELIGIOUS RECITATION AT FLAG–FOLDING CEREMONIES.

IN THE CLARIFIED DIRECTIVE, THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS NOW SAYS VOLUNTEER HONOR GUARDS MAY RECITE ANY TEXT, INCLUDING THE TEXT OF THE FLAG FOLDING CEREMONY, THAT IS REQUESTED BY THE NEXT OF KIN.

North Platte Telegraph:

Flag-folding recitation not an issue
By DIANE WETZEL

The recent nation-wide flag-folding flap hasn’t affected Fort McPherson National Cemetery near Maxwell.

On Tuesday, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a press release clarifying last month’s ban on any recitations made while the United States flag is folded at the gravesite of a veteran.

The ban prohibited National Cemetery employees and volunteers from reciting “13 fold” which ascribes a meaning to each specific fold.

Fort McPherson Director George Bacon said he could not comment on the VA’s position, but that the “13-fold” recitation had never been done at the cemetery.

“It’s never been an issue here,” Bacon said.

Traditional gravesite military funeral honors include the silent folding and presentation of the American flag, a firing squad salute and the playing of “Taps.”

“There is nothing official about the 13-fold recitation,” Bacon said.

House Actions 10/22/2007 - 10/26/2007

This week in the House started out with not a lot going on. There were several bills voted on that dealt with preserving public lands, national historical sites and designating wilderness areas. In each incident, Adrian Smith voted against the bills that would preserve and protect these areas. It didn’t matter that all of these areas had a significant impact on local economies or preserved important pieces of our history as a nation. So it appears Smith has issues with these things.

There was a vote that passed the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. This cleared for the White House and was signed into law. All the members of Congress present voted for this important bill.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act was debated and passed. This bill allowed for the recognition of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity. This had been a bill that had been worked on for about 5 years, and would basically solidify the relationship between Native Hawaiians and the US Government. Adrian Smith joined in with most Republicans in wanting to stop “special” rights to another indigenous group of Americans. This continues to be his pattern. It continues to lead a person to wonder if he has a problem with Native Americans of any tribe. Does he believe that treaty obligations should be abandon? Does he realize that too many were already abandoned and violated by our government, and that keeping what is left of them is the only proper and honorable thing to do?

Finally, there was the vote on the new House version of the SCHIP Bill. Given I’ve already detailed the extensive lies told by Smith in making his excuses for NOT support this important piece of legislation, I won’t get into again here. Needless to say, he continued to pull the stunt of CLAIMING he cares about the children, but voting against it anyway. He’d then turn around and send out press release statements claiming it was the Democrats playing politics with the issue, while refusing to admit it was he and other Republicans (not all, mind you) that were playing the political games. What’s sad is it’s the children that will suffer, all because they don’t want to spend too much money. What was really sad is that Smith joined in with the Republicans to try and prevent consideration in the first place. They made several motions to Adjourn, trying to stall any and all debate. They then made motions to try and stop the resolution that set for the rules for debate. They failed in the end, but Smith had not problem joining right in with all the political games. My blood boils just thinking about the whole thing!

Smith did get up and make one floor statement about Domestic Violence. Nice statement, but the questions is - what is he doing about it? He didn’t back it with any new legislation, or signing onto anything that would fight the problem.

Smith signed on as a cosponsor on 3 bills. One of them was a resolution regarding Chemistry Week. It went through the House Science and Technology Committee and many on there signed onto it. Smith waited until the day it was actually on the floor for passage by voice vote. He also signed onto another Science and Tech bill regarding maritime technology. It’s a bipartisan bill, and he was part of the group that introduced it.

Finally, he signed onto yet another ideological bill that basically looks to protect groups placing markers, statues, plaques, etc. on government owned property that is of a religious nature (for example, a church group putting up a giant 10 Commandments in the center of a city’s main park). It would, in turn, work to discourage any and all lawsuits by groups arguing these things are a violation of the First Amendment, regarding what William Jefferson once called the “separation between church and state”.


ROLL CALL VOTES


H.R.189 - A bill to establish the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in the State of New Jersey and for other purposes.

As stated, this bill establishes a new National Historical Park in New Jersey. It allows the government to enter into cooperative agreements with landowners who have property within the boundaries, and allow for preservation of historical sites. It further sets up all other areas of consideration to manage the site.

The site is historical because, after the Revolutionary, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton chose it for the first industrial center in the new America. He invited Pierre L’Enfant to design and help create what became the City of Paterson. The site represented a new direct: Transformation of an agricultural society, dependent upon slavery, into a modern economy based on freedom.

President Ford designated the area as a national historic landmark in 1976. In a speech at the site, stated: “We can see the Great Falls as a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make America the most powerful Nation in the world.'' The 104th Congress (1995-1996) later established an historical district and authorized funds for restoration and preservation.

Those opposed to this legislation stated that the National Park Service had conducted a study and concluded that the site did not meet the definition of a National Park. They also stated that the National Park Service was already in arrears in maintenance and upkeep of some parks. They acknowledged that it’s not the NPS that makes the designations, but the Congress.

At one point, Georgia Rep. Tom Price was speaking against this bill, saying that the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area in his district was not getting the attention it deserved, and this new park would be a further burden. A supporter pointed out that the original designation for that park was also not supported by National Park Service, but Congress passed it anyway. That park is 46-miles long, while the new park would only be 110 acres, with monetary support already promised by the State of New Jersey.


H.R. 189 PASSED on a vote of 256-122-54
FOR: 206 Democrats, 50 Republicans
AGAINST: 122 Republicans
NO VOTE: 26 Democrats, 28 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the bill. Why would he vote against protecting a small piece of land that was significant to our history as a nation?


H.RES.767 - Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Republicans introduced this resolution to try and censure Rep. Pete Stark. In the heated debate over the SCHIP bill, Rep. Stark said on the floor to Republicans: “You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.”. They were also upset that the next day, in a press release, he stated: “I respect neither the Commander-in-Chief who keeps them in harms way nor the chickenhawks in Congress.”

Stark later apologized for his remarks.

A Motion to Table the resolution was made, which would prevent a final vote on it.

The motion PASSED on a vote of 196-173-8-55, pretty much party-line, with Republicans voting against the motion. Smith joined in voting against the motion.


H.R.327 - To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive program designed to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans.

The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act was passed previously in the House, and went through the Senate. This vote was just to agree to the Senate amendments and provide for final passage.

The bill PASSED on a UNANIMOUS vote, and was presented to the President for signature.


H.RES.763 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1011) to designate additional National Forest System lands in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail plans for the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other purposes.

This sets forth the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 1011. As always, it was passed on a party-line vote.


H.R.1011 - To designate additional National Forest System lands in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail plans for the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other purposes.

The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act would designate certain lands in the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia as wilderness areas, naming them the "Lynn Camp Creek Wilderness Study Area " and the "Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area" for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness. Requirements are made in regard to ecological restoration. Other areas would be designated National Scenic Areas. The management of all these areas was also laid out within the bill.

There were 2 amendments introduced, with both being passed by voice vote.


A Motion to Recommit was then made, to be reported back “forthwith” (as in, immediately) with the following amendment:

At the end of section 2, add the following new subsection:
(e) Motorized Access in Emergencies.--The designation of lands as wilderness or a wilderness study area by an amendment made by this section does not prohibit the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats or the landing of aircraft or other forms of mechanical transport, on the designated lands when required in connection with an emergency involving the health and safety of persons, including search and rescue efforts or the response to an Amber Alert.

Those in support of this felt the bill wasn’t clear as to when motorized access could be used for health and safety reasons. Those opposed stated that this was already addressed in current law, and has not been an issue with past health or safety incidents. It was also pointed out that the National Forest Service had never come to Congress with concerns regarding access in such situations.

The Motion to Recommit PASSED on a vote of 236-178-18. There were 48 Democrats that joined the Republicans in voting for the motion.


The bill then PASSED BY VOICE VOTE.


H.RES.765 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes.

This sets for the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 1483.

As usual, 2 votes (ordering previous question, agreeing to resolution), both party line with Republicans voting against.


H.R.1483 - To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes.

The Celebrating America’s Heritage Act extends the authorization for making grants and other assistance through September 30, 2027. This covers national heritage areas throughout the Appalachian Mountains, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc.

One amendment was introduced and passed by voice vote.


A Motion to Recommit was then made, with instructions to add an amendment and report back “forthwith” (as in, immediately). It stated:

TITLE VI--APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS
SEC. 6001. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.
All designated and future designated lands within any natural heritage area for which funding is provided under this Act shall be exclusively governed by relevant State and local laws regarding hunting, fishing, and the possession or use of a weapon, trap, or net.

Those in support of this stated it would ensure the right of State and local governments to regulate hunting, fishing and trapping. They acknowledge the bill already allows for that, but that it is “silent” on the issue of the right to carry firearms. There was little opposition, but it was pointed out that this was another attempt by a minority to try and make an issue out of something that wasn’t an issue.

The motion PASSED on a vote of 344-71-17, with all Republicans present voting for it.


The bill then PASSED on a vote of 291-122-19
FOR: 222 Democrats, 69 Republicans
AGAINST: 122 Republicans
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 9 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL.

Smith seems to have a problem with protecting our national heritage.


H.RES.764 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 505) to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

This provides the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 505.

As usual, 2 votes (ordering previous question, agreeing to resolution), both party line with Republicans voting against.


H.R.505 - To express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 would establish the U.S. Office for Native Hawaiian Relations within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, along with the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group. It recognizes the right of Native Hawaiians to reorganize, sets for procedures to maintain a roll of those adults who participate, forms a Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council, reaffirms the special political and legal relationship between the U.S. and Native Hawaiian governing bodies.

There were no amendments offered during debate.

Rep. Jeff Flake then stood up and made a Motion to Recommit. He asked to add the following amendment, to be reported back “forthwith”:

Page 44, after line 22, insert the following:

(h) Applicability of the United States Constitution' s Bill of Rights.--The Native Hawaiian governing entity shall be subject to the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights and other protections in the same manner and to the same extent as a State or local government of the United States.

(i) Applicability of Federal Civil Rights Laws.--The Native Hawaiian governing entity shall be subject to Federal civil rights and antidiscrimination laws in the same manner and to the same extent as a State or local government of the United States.

(j) No Racially Defined Burdens or Immunities.--No persons shall, as a result of the operation of this Act, be exempted from any Federal or State law, regulation, tax, or other legal burden on the basis of that person's race or ancestry or on the basis of any classification that is defined by race or ancestry.

Flake stated that the US Civil Rights Commission felt this bill would discriminate based on race or national origin, and would violate the 14th Amendment.

Rep. Abercrombie, the bills sponsor, objected because it stated the “same manner” and “same extent” of a state or local government. This would open them up to litigation like States are currently, and they are not “states”. He also pointed out the bill was as result of 5 years of bipartisan and nonpartisan work that had been vetted by legal counsel repeatedly. He also stated the wording of Flake’s amendment was way to vague to provide any kind of real guidance.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 178-235-19. All “Yes” votes were Republicans, with Adrian Smith joining in that vote.


The bill then PASSED on a vote of 261-153-18
FOR: 222 Democrats, 39 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 152 Republicans
NO VOTE: 9 Democrats, 9 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST this bill. He continues his voting pattern against native or indigenous people in this country. He’s made it clear he does not recognize that these groups do have a special status based on treaty agreements.


OCTOBER 25th.......

This was the day that the new SCHIP bill was coming up for debate. It was also another one of those examples where Republicans show they will play games to try and prevent something truly good from going through. As you will see, Adrian Smith played along with all those games, putting politics before the people, and especially the children, at every step.

The House convened at 10AM. After the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, at 10:13AM Republicans made their first Motion to Adjourn.

The vote was completed at 10:39AM. The motion to Adjourn FAILED on a vote of 158-220-54, with only 15 Republicans joining Democrats to vote against it. Smith voted FOR ADJOURNMENT.

At 10:56AM, Republicans made ANOTHER motion to Adjourn.

The vote was completed at 11:19AM. The motion to Adjourn FAILED on a vote of 166-222-40, with only 13 Republicans joining with Democrats to vote against it. Smith voted FOR ADJOURNMENT.


H.RES.774 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

This set forth the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 3963, the new SCHIP bill.

Republicans objected to the resolution, saying it violated the Budget Act. This objection was overruled. They then demanded a vote on the question of “Will the House Now Consider the Resolution”.

The motion PASSED on a vote of 216-181-35, nearly party-line with Smith and the Republicans voting AGAINST it.

Republicans immediately made a Motion to Reconsider that vote, but Democrats moved immediately to Table the Motion to Reconsider (basically, a vote was held to NOT reconsider - confused yet?)

The Motion to Reconsider was TABLED on a vote of 218-183-31, nearly party line with Smith voting AGAINST tabling of the motion.

After all this rangling, the time was now 12:15PM, and Republicans made ANOTHER motion to ADJOURN.

The vote completed at 12:32PM, and the motion to Adjourn FAILED on a vote of 165-224-43. There were 14 Republicans that joined with the Democrats. Smith voted FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Finally, on “Ordering the Previous Question” and “Agreeing to the Resolution”, the bill H.Res. 774 PASSED, with both votes being party-line, and all Republicans voting against it.


H.R.3963 - To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

This new bill addresses many of the concerns that those opposed had before. Since I’ve already been covering this extensively, and it was also reported in a GI Independent editorial, I won’t go into detail here.

After all the debate, Republicans made a Motion to Recommit with an amendment. The motion was an extensive rewriting of much of the bill. It cut the number of children covered and the cost of the bill by $10 Billion, while make standards much tougher that would result in preventing eligible children from being enrolled.

The Motion to Recommit FAILED on a vote of 164-242-26
FOR: 164 Republicans
AGAINST: 222 Democrats, 20 Republicans
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 16 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the Motion.

H.R. 3963 then PASSED on a vote of 265-142-26
FOR: 222 Democrats, 43 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 141 Republicans
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 16 Republicans

Smith VOTED AGAINST NEBRASKA’S CHILDREN in low income families that cannot afford health care coverage, but are also not eligible for Medicaid coverage.


As usual, Smith put out a press statement. As usual, he chose to lie to constituents, rather than just being honest. Here are some of the highlights:

Smith Statement on House Passage of SCHIP Legislation

“Rather than taking the opportunity to craft legislation which would pass overwhelmingly on an important program like SCHIP – a program I support along with nearly every other member of Congress – today we voted on a bill with very little substantive changes from the previous version and which still fails on several fronts.

“Unfortunately, sound public policy sometimes takes a backseat to headline grabbing, and I fear that is where this debate is headed. Today’s vote proved, once again, the House does not have the votes to override a Presidential veto. Again, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to sit down with each other and the President and come to a compromise which can be signed into law.

“We need a bill that truly targets health care to the neediest, guarantees illegal immigrants do not have access to federal benefits, and does not raise taxes,” Smith said.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, under H.R. 3963, two million new individuals would opt out of private health insurance plans in order to receive government health insurance. The bill also has been criticized for substantially weakening the requirements individuals applying for the program must fulfill to prove citizenship or nationality.

I’ve already debunked every lie he told there, so no reason to do it again. All he would ever support is what the President told him to support, and that would actually cut the number of children eligible. All during a time when more and more families are losing their health coverage because of the high costs.


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

The remaining bills with recorded votes were passed with little or no opposition:


H.R.523 - To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain public land located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the Wells Hydroelectric Project of Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington, to the utility district.
H.RES.762 - Supporting the goals of National Bullying Prevention Awareness Week.
H.R.1808 - To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia, as the "Charlie Norwood Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center".
H.RES.680 - Condemning the actions of September 7, 2007, resulting in damage to the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial.
H.R.1955 - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.



FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith made one floor statement on 10/23/2007.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, recently Congress passed House Resolution 590, supporting the goals of Domestic Violence Awareness Month while raising awareness of domestic violence throughout our country. I am here to voice my support for everyone impacted by this horrible nightmare. This is an issue which affects millions in urban and rural areas alike. It crosses economic lines, geographic lines and ethnic lines. No segment of our population is immune. One out of five women and one out of 14 men have been domestically assaulted at some point in their lives.

In my home State of Nebraska, there are more than 5,800 protection orders needed for those living in fear of violence. Domestic violence is an issue which too often is swept under the rug or ignored. So as part of the Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I am wearing a purple ribbon to raise awareness about the crime of domestic abuse as we work toward ending this violence.

Hey, Adrian? I understand you wanting to support awareness....but what EXACTLY have you done to try and address the issue? Anything?


BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week, but added his name as a cosponsor to 3 bills.


H.RES.751 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week.

This bill was introduced on 10/16/2007 and put before the House Science and Technology Committee. It went to the floor for a vote on 10/22/2007. Smith added his name to the bill that same day, and it was passed with a voice vote. In other words, he added his name as all the work was completed.


H.R.725 - To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

This bill was introduced way back on 1/30/2007.

It’s called the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2007.

If some group puts up a statue or plaque in a location owned by a city, county, state or federal government, and a group files a suit claiming violation of the First Amendment (government endorsing one religion), then the remedy would be greatly limited. The relief would only be injunctive and declaratory relief, nothing else. Any attorney’s fees incurred by those filing suit would also not be recovered.

Basically, those who want this bill would want groups to be able to display any religious displays they want on government property on a permanent basis. They would want to discourage any and all suits by not allowing any monetary relief, including attorney fees.

This is yet another of Smith’s long list of ideological bills that he signs his name to. In this case, he waited nearly 9 months, until 10/23/2007, to add his name.


H.R.3916 - To provide for the next generation of border and maritime security technologies.

This bill was introduced on 10/22/2007, with Smith joining in as one of the original cosponsors. Several other members of the House Science and Technology Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, also joined in.


IN THE NEWS

There were several articles this week, but some require a seperate posting due to the high level of extremely dishonest spinning on Smith's part. But here was one I decided to take a look at right away.

SMITH SAYS PANHANDLE WILL HAVE TO FIGHT FOR ROADS FUNDING
10/22/2007 - 02:54:04 PM

CONGRESSMAN ADRIAN SMITH SAYS THE NEBRASKA PANHANDLE WILL LIKELY HAVE TO FIGHT HARDER FOR ITS SHARE OF FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING.

FEDERAL GAS TAX RECEIPTS ARE DOWN FROM THE LATE 90'S AS PRICES HAVE SKY–ROCKETED, PROMPTING MANY TO CUT BACK ON HOW MUCH THEY DRIVE.

SMITH SAYS IT DOESN'T HELP THAT BIG CITY HIGHWAYS CONTINUE TO GET MORE AND MORE CONGESTED.

"Simply adding lane–miles in these larger cities is not addressing the problem. And we're left begging for what we can get out here where we know better highway infrastructure leads to economic development."

SMITH SAYS A BROADER ENERGY POLICY WILL HELP, BUT IN SOME INSTANCES THAT CAN BE A DUAL– EDGED SWORD.

"The more creative we're getting, in terms of fuels and other efficiencies, the more complicated. You take a hybrid that might get better gas mileage, but it still has four wheels on pavement."

FEW IN CONGRESS ARE CALLING FOR A HIGHER GAS TAX, BUT SMITH WOULD LIKE TO SEE REVENUE STABILIZE THROUGH SOME SORT OF INDEXING MECHANISM.

Here’s the kicker: What has he done to try and get those funds? Anything? What about the Heartland Expressway?

Back in June, a news reported stated:

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

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

But back in March, a Scottsbluff Star Herald Editor spoke up and actually voiced criticism on the inactions of both Smith and Heineman:

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

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

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

That was written when Smith first refused to submit earmarks. He was one of only 3 House member who found the rules “ethically confusing”. What about after things were cleared up? We will never know because he has refused to release a list of earmarks he requested. Therefore we don’t know that he’s done ANYTHING to try and get the funds needed for the Heartland Expressway. So, the most recent comments seem to support the predictions and comments from back in March. Both Smith and Heinemann show through their actions that: “Spending transportation dollars here isn't a priority for their party or the supporters who bankrolled their campaigns.”

And just what doest he mean by an “indexing mechanism”? What exactly would be indexed? Gas taxes? Wouldn’t that mean increases? He’s not clear, and I’m sure that intentional. Too bad the reporters just did the usual “quote with no follow up”. Smith talks a lot. That’s it. Just talk. Maybe he needs to actually stand up and fight for things for his district rather than pose and play Congressman.

Smith's Second Quarter Statement of Disbursements

I’ve actually had the Second Quarter report (3 big books again) for a couple months, and scanned the pages. I just hadn’t done anything with it yet.



Thought it was time to get the ongoing spending habits of Adrian Smith up for everyone’s consideration.


PAGE 1



Right off you see the totals spent by Smith’s office. To put in perspective:

- He spent $18,613.45 less than he did last quarter.
- He spent another $20,926.57 on postage for Franked Mail.
- There was $13,358.33 more spent on travel, more than double what was spent last quarter.


PAGE 2



This page shows that Smith spent $16,755.50 for postage on his second mass mailing. That was the one where he claimed he was “taking the lead” on alternative energy (and specifically ethanol) issues in Congress. Of course, he hadn’t done anything to demonstrate that claim in reality.

His Chief of Staff, Jeff Shapiro, gets a pretty nice salary: $10,000 a month, which is nearly DOUBLE what anyone else gets. Must be nice!

Other things noticed on this page:

- When the Grand Island staffer, Alex Straatman, took a flight from Omaha to DC, the cost was $214.30. When Jeff Shapiro took a DC to Omaha flight (so, same destinations), the cost was $626.29. That’s about at 292% difference.


PAGE 3



This continues the Travel list of expenses.

There was $700.29 was spent for someone to fly from DCA to SBL, round trip between 2/8 and 2/12. Then another $652.29 was spent for the same round trip from 2/18 to 2/26. SBL is the code for an airport in Bolivia. Either these are typos (which I doubt) or someone went to South America twice. Never hearing about anything to do with South America, I’m wondering what the purpose for this was?

Also, the pattern continues for Shapiro to be credited with taking the more expensive flights from DC to Nebraska. Hope he’s not traveling First Class or even Business Class at our expense!


PAGE 4



We see the last of the Travel expenses. The only thing that jumped out was a 2-day car rental for $208.53. Must have been one hell of a car to rent, because that’s a LOT to spend on a car rental!

I was interested in how much was actually spent on cars and gas. There were the totals:

Gasoline = $633.77
Private Auto Mileage = $2,970.84
Car Rental = $621.67
2007 GMAC Acadia Lease = $1,736.40

TOTAL = $ 5,962.68

The start of the Rent, Communication, Utilities list starts. Not much stands out, other than the fact they list payments to 4 different telecommunications companies.


PAGE 5



The list continues, and we see payments going to Charter Communications for “utilities”. Are they cable and internet? And I though the reason there were so many telecommunications companies was internet and phone for all the offices, including DC. However, we so the charges for DC are clearly indicated.

Finally, if Charter covers cable, then it’s interesting to see on this page a payment to Dish Network for 5/1 to 6/30 in the amount of $379.65.

I don’t know what any of that means, but it’s rather fascinating. I’d think it would be cheaper to find ways to bundle expenses under as few service providers as possible. That’s what most people do, and as a result, they get discounts on the fees.


PAGE 6



The Printing and Reproduction sections comes up, and as with the First Quarter, we see that Smith again sent a lot of money to Targeted Creative Communcations, the partisan Republican “persuasion” firm that has ties with Karl Rove:

Town Hall Phone Calls = $4,172.79
Advertising = $6,754.95

That’s a total of $10,927.74 paid to Targeted Creative Communications.

That’s in addition to the $25,116 paid to them last quarter.

And notice that they were used to do some of Smith’s Town Hall phone calls. Those are the calls where they dial up specific constituents, invite them to join in, they listen to Smith talk about what a great job he’s doing, and then they can ask questions - but only after getting filtered through a staffer first.

And just what would they be “advertising”, that would cost nearly $6,800??

This just continues to show Smith’s desire to CREATE an image with the right people doing it for him, rather than EARNING an image through real actions. And I continue to protest the fact that a partisan firm known for using the Karl Rove politics of “persuasion” through smoke and mirrors is getting our taxpayer dollars. It’s just not right.


PAGE 7



Only one thing stands out on this page.

Under Supplies and Materials, Jeff Shapiro is noted as receiving reimbursement for “Leased Auto Expense”. It gives the date of 4/19 and the cost was $552. I’m sure it had to be legit, but it is interesting.


PAGE 8



One thing that I will credit Smith for (even though these things occur far and few between) is that so far he has not spent a great deal of money on Food & Beverage for Meetings and Bottled Water. I’ve seen the listings for other members of Congress, and some will spend thousands each quarter. Smith does hold back on that, at least.

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

In the Mass Mailings section, it shows that Smith sent out a total of 78,403 pieces of mass mail. This indicates he most likely targeted who received the second glossy report of his (hence, the reason for hiring “Targeted” Creative Communications for the job). The cost for printing the mass mailing didn’t appear in this report, but it was sent out near the end of the reporting period. It may show up in the next report, along with the cost for the third mailing.

Yesterday: An example of what happens when a Congressman and his staff refuse to communicate

I have to tell you, yesterday was a very interesting day. It was fascinating to see things unfold.

This actually proved a good example of what WILL happen every time Adrian Smith and his staff continue with the policy of refusing to communicate.

For the last 10 months, Smith and his staff have made it clear through their actions that they will NOT answer questions, or provide anything else to those that question Smith's actions. They refuse to a return phone calls (with the exception of once since they learned what I was doing), they refuse to answer letters and emails, they refuse to provide publicly available reports that they have to send out for those who don't live in the DC area. They block access to Smith unless it's on their terms, they create scenarios where he's only presented in a certain light.

In other words, what you see and what you perceive is severely controlled.

In trying to figure out at the website issue, nothing came from Smith's office. Not a word. Given their history of negative actions, one was only left with speculation. Every time I've tried to get their side of a story, and tried to be fair....Nothing. And so far, when I've speculated, I've been on target.

If I got this one off line a bit, so be it. I wasn't that far off. I just went off a report, got no rebuttal, and then took history into account. Maybe in the future they will learn that it's actually a good idea to talk, to communicate, to open the lines between Smith and those who disagree with him.

But that still doesn't explain their ongoing silence and ongoing willingness to let the private company take the fall. Nothing that company said could be 100% validated because they refused to provide a list of other government sites they ran, and they refused to do anything but say "take our word for it". That's not good enough.

What is a government official doing going to a private web contractor in the first place? What was wrong with just using the House servers? And if this companies servers can't handle it, then maybe Smith needs to forgo the fancy, self-promoting site they've set up and just settle for the VERY adequate template that was provided by the House tech support. There was nothing wrong with it and it provided all the necessary information (along with the ability to self promote) that constituents needed.

Matter of fact, maybe Smith should step up to the plate to fight government waste, and submit a bill that would prevent members of Congress from spending EXTRA taxpayer money on websites that are more like campaign sites? Now THAT would be true fiscal conservatism!!

I'm disappointed but not surprised that Smith's office decided to duck their heads and hide. That's the usual practice for them. But I hope in the future they will learn it's actually a good idea to speak to people who won't always agree with them. I've always told them I am very willing to have an open dialogue and to really listen (as long as the political spin and BS is removed and the REAL Adrian allows himself to speak). Hell, I might even like the guy if they did that!

Update: A Day Smith Probably Is Hating About Now

Today is shaping up to be a great day for Smith Watch, and probably a nightmare for Rep. Adrian Smith.

SCHIP

When I posted my reports on Smith misleading constituents about SCHIP, I then put a more concise article in a point/counterpoint format, and posted it on the New Nebraska Network. At the time, I also decided to email the same thing out to the major news organizations around Nebraska, if only to show them that Smith was not being honest. My hope was that they would at least start putting counterpoints to Smith's statements on the issues, instead of just publishing his comments without challenge.

I was thrilled and amazed when I got contacted by the Grand Island Independent. They decided to publish it!

The article was pushed in todays newspaper: Adrian Smith's SCHIP claims refuted.

They edited, but did it very well, keeping all the necessary points in there. I may like to give the Independent a hard time about their reporting, but I do have to say that I appreciate the fact they will allow differing opinions to be published. It's great to see the facts were finally put front and center!


BLOCKING ACCESS TO OFFICIAL SITE

When I reported this weekend on the fact that Smith's Official Government Website is purposely blocking Blogspot.com traffic, I decided to also post the information on the New Nebraska Network. What's great about the network we have in Nebraska is that progressive bloggers will support each other.

The story struck a cord, and with their great help, it's started to go "viral" today. And not just locally, but nationally as well. Here is the list of websites it's posted on so far:

DIGG: Republican Congressman Blocking Web Traffic from Bloggers

MyDD: Afraid of Bloggers: Republican Congressman Blocking Access to Public Website

NEALO.COM: Adrian Smith Fears Blogs

IOWA INDEPENDENT: Small mention

DAILYKOS: GOP Congressman Blocking Links From Blogs

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Republican Congressman Cuts Off Access To Official Website From Bloggers

NEBRASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: "Smith Watch" Gets Under Congressman's Skin

KXMB-CBS12, BISMARK, ND: Republican Congressman Cuts Off Access To Official Website From Bloggers

SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION (Congresspedia): Web Rule #1: Link to other sites on the Web


FURTHER UPDATES:

This morning, I contacted the office of Congressman Adrian Smith. I tried to speak with Charles Isom (communications) or Jeff Shapiro (Chief of Staff). Jeff wasn't available and Charles was busy. I left a message on Charles' voicemail to contact me on this matter. As has happened in the past, I never got a return call. I didn't expect it. It's not normal for them actually answer requests for phone calls from me. I was willing to provide a chance at a response.

This afternoon I received a posting from a firm called GovTrends. You can see it below, as I will post their comments, but before I was going to do that, I wanted to verify. Sorry, I don't take them at face value. Plus, it was pretty pathetic that, once again, Smith's people just chose to not speak with me. At the same time, I had been waiting for this to happen. The tech that found the problem had even said they would try to pull this, but not really believable.

I went ahead and called them, after seeing that their site said:

GovTrends is a full service web studio and online strategy firm focused on serving high profile political and corporate clients.

Whenever I see the word "Stategy", that comes to close to being a "persuasion" firm, like Targeted Creative Communications.

They verified they run websites for other members of Congress. I asked who they were, they refused to tell me, saying "it's confidential". Doesn't matter that they are being paid with my tax dollars to set up and manage official government websites. Doesn't matter that every dollar spent by members of Congress through their office is public information, and hence, so is who they are giving it to. That arguement didn't really budge the guy. He just told me to send an email request, then, and they'd do some tests first. That perked up my interest. In other words, were they going to fix it? How, I don't know, but his refusal to be cooperative in verifying what he said sure didn't sit right.

He said, as you can see, their servers are set by default. He kept on wanting to tell me about some site on the internet that tells about the biggest spammers, and that blogspot.com was one of them. I told him I didn't care about that.

So, we have Smith's office continuing to refuse to comment on this, and a provider wanting us to take them at face value.

So let's look at some of the clients that they serve, as noted on their site:

- JP Morgan
- NYC Health
- Sirius Satellite
- Snapple
- Godiva Chocolatier
- WebMD
- Wharton: University of Pennsylvania
- The Bahamas

So far, their own site and the ones I've tested that I can see they run have all been accessible through Blogspot.com. So, that leads to the question: Is this automatic blocking only occuring on servers for members of Congress? Is that even believable? And just how many members of Congress do they actually work for since they're not providing a list?

Unfortunately, this has only led to further questions about Adrian Smith's website issue. Especially since this wasn't an issue until this firm was hired to create a new site for Smith. The new version had gone up sometime in July. The thing is, I used my own site to go to the links I've set up, and I don't recall this ever being an issue except for the last 2-3 months, AFTER the site was updated.

We will wait and see if Smith's people or this firm want to be more forthcoming....


ANOTHER UPDATE:

Now they're claiming that Congressional sites ARE ran through a seperate server and using a different spam filtering program they got from gotroot.com. That still doesn't seem right. And they'll change it only if they feel blogspot.com won't send through too much spam and affect their "clients". Of course, they don't explain just how spam will affect OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SITES.

In the mean time, Adrian Smith and his staff remain silent, letting the provider take the rap. What a great bunch of people!!

House Actions 10/15/2007 - 10/19/2007

It was fascinating to see that, during this week of House activity, there were quite a few issues that had very broad support. Even Adrian Smith couldn’t always find ways to go the opposite direct. It’s always a good thing for the American people when politicians can find things they can agree on and move forward. It just goes to show that not EVERYTHING has to be an US vs. THEM issue.

Smith joined the vast majority of the Congress to support a Resolution that condemned the withholding of information by the Bush Administration related to corruption within the Iraqi government. And in response to Bush trying to classify a report that contained this information, they went as far as to call that an abuse of the classification process to withhold broad assessments of the extent of the corruption. In doing this, it makes one wonder if Adrian Smith is also having to acknowledge that things aren’t as rosy in Iraq as he’s tried to claim they are.

Smith also joined the vast majority in voting on a bill that would protect journalists from being pressured to release information from sources. The exception would only come if a judge ordered it based on a preponderance of the evidence, or when national security is directly threatened.

The House also passed a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support that prohibited states from being able to tax internet access, along with most internet commerce, as has been done since 1998. There are exceptions for those that passed laws before the 1998 laws were passed, but those exceptions do not allow increases. Of course, in leading up to this vote, Smith had to make it a big issue through statements and his weekly column that he (most likely his staff) writes. He tried to make a small controversy because it wasn’t made permanent, and announce that HE is cosponsoring a bill that would do just that. But here’s the irony: Republicans had control of the House and Senate for 6 years. In 2001 and 2003, they could have push through a permanent ban on taxes for the internet. They chose to limit the ban, forcing ongoing reauthorization. Why, now, is it a big issue?

The fact is that, as internet becomes more and more the method of choice for people to communicate and make purchases, there may come a time where sales taxes are dropping for local governments, and creating major problems. These taxes are used to pay for basic infrastructure locally, and for some governments, even covering the cost for schools. You can’t close a door to something like that permanently. But unless it becomes an absolute necessity, there is nothing wrong with renewing the law every few years.

Smith also supported (again with the vast majority) a bill regarding railroad safety issues.

The big vote this week, however, was the vote to try and override Bush’s veto of the SCHIP bill. As I’ve reported repeatedly, Smith once again voted against the needs of the children, and stuck with the House leadership in blocking this at every chance possible. He then turned around and made highly disingenuous statements, coupled with completely dishonest claims about the effects of the bill.

Smith cosponsored 3 more bills, but he remains at the bottom of the pack of freshman’s, continuing the pattern of being one of the least effective members of Congress.

Smith found time to do self promotion by appealing to hunters, even though he did little more than join the rest of the members of Congress in showing support for hunters. He also joined with Republicans in trying to create another false controversy. They are moving to try and permanent ban the Fairness Doctrine. This is a policy that was ended over 20 years ago, but called for broadcasters to always give opposing viewpoints on hot button issues. They fear that Democrats will reinstate it, and it would have the most immediate impact on the entire Fox News network, and Rush Limbaugh. But, at the same time, there has been no move to reinstate it. But, you’ve got to keep the base worried that the liberals are going to take over and destroy this country, and what better way than to tell the base that they are going to find a way to silence their most important media assests? God knows, Bill O’Reilly would be completely lost if his “No Spin Zone” actually had to provide time for the actual truth for a change!!


ROLL CALL VOTES


H.RES.741 - Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 734) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq.

This sets forth the rules for debate and consideration of H.Res.734.

Two votes: Ordering the Previous Question and Agreeing to the Resolution. Both votes party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against. It passed.


H.RES.734 - Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq.

PER the CRS Summary:

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that:
(1) as Congress considers the President's request for over $150 billion more for the war in Iraq it is essential that Congress and the people of the United States know the extent of corruption in the Iraqi government and whether corruption is fueling the insurgency;
(2) it was wrong to retroactively classify portions of the report titled "Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: U.S. Ministry Capacity Development Efforts Need an Overall Integrated Strategy to Guide Efforts and Manage Risk" which was released October 4, 2007, and other statements that do not meet the criteria for classification;
(3) it is an abuse of the classification process to withhold from Congress and the people of the United States broad assessments of the extent of corruption in the Iraqi government; and
(4) a directive that prohibits federal officials from providing Congress and the people of the United States with broad assessments which characterize the quality of Iraqi governance and that they should be rescinded.

Surprisingly, this was very bipartisan.

The resolution PASSED on a vote of 395-21-15.
Only 21 Republicans voted against it.

Smith voted for it. Is he having to admit that things aren’t are rosy as he’s parroted them to be??


H.RES.742 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2102) to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

This sets forth the rules for debate on H.R. 2102.

Two votes: Ordering the Previous Question and Agreeing to the Resolution. Both votes party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against. It passed.

Why do I keep posting these votes? Because it shows the pattern of how Republicans want to fight every bill every step of the way regardless if they actually support the bill. Adrian Smith joins right in with them. It’s important for readers to really understand that.


H.R.2102 - To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

This bill is known as the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. It’s a bill that is supposed to protect journalists, so that judges or members of the executive branch cannot compel them testify or produce documents unless a court orders it based on a preponderance of the evidence. That content must be limited. The bill also applies to “communications service providers” with regards to transactions between them and journalists.

There were 2 amendments, each adopted by voice vote. They provided for exceptions that directly relate to national security.


After debate was complete, a Motion to Recommit was made, with instructions to report “forthwith”. The amendment stated:

(b) AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.--For purposes of making a determination under subsection (a)(4), a court may consider the extent of any harm to national security.

The Motion PASSED on a vote of 388-33-10.
Smith voted FOR it.


H.R. 2102 then PASSED on a vote of 398-21-12.
Only 20 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted against it.
Smith voted FOR it.


H.R.3678 - To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

Known as the Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007, this widely supported bill extends the moratorium on state taxation of Internet access and electronic commerce until November 1, 2011, with exemptions for states that had previously enacted such laws. Those with exemptions would have restricted authority to continue taxing. They made sure that emails and instant messaging were included under the definition of internet commerce, as well as non-utility telecommunications (such as cable service).

With little debate, a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass was made (this requires a two-thirds vote to pass.)

The bill PASSED on a vote of 405-2-25.
Basically, everyone supported it.


Here’s the interesting thing. This was not a big deal. This was what everyone wanted. There was no controversy. But Smith, in his infinite wisdom, put a lot of time and energy into making it sound like it was a big controversial topic. Why would he do it? Well, for starters, in doing that, he gives the impression to constituents that he’s really stepping up to defend their rights against the big, bad Democrats. Too bad he has to keep making it up as he goes along.

Smith wrote one of his (always entertaining and full of BS) weekly columns on “Internet Tax Freedom”.

Recognizing the potential of the Internet and wanting to make sure it had the chance to succeed Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) in 1998, and has temporarily extended the moratorium twice - once in 2001 and once more in 2003.

Though it has been extended twice, ITFA has never been made permanent despite repeated attempts.

There is broad, bipartisan support for renewing the law banning taxes on Internet access, including cable modem and digital subscriber lines or DSL as it is more commonly known. What is in question, however, is whether the tax moratorium should be made permanent or simply extended for a few years as has been done the last two times Congress tackled this issue.

Adding to the drama is the fact the current moratorium expires on November 1, 2007 - a little more than a month away - and precious little has been done to either extend the moratorium or make it permanent.

If the moratorium elapses without Congress taking action, there exists a very real possibility some states could leap at the opportunity to pass new laws taxing Internet access, raising the cost of Internet access for users.

Oh my god! The Sky is falling!!

Oh...wait...just a moment. When this was released, the bill was already working its way through. Matter of fact, in the end, it was all passed and signed by the President by 10/31/07. Maybe he shouldn’t have gotten all worked up over nothing.

After the House’s vote, Smith also sent out a Press Release to announce that HE VOTED FOR THE BILL (failing to state that so did the rest of Congress, with the exception of 2 people).

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) today voted to pass a four year moratorium on taxes leveled against Internet access, while calling on Congress to make the tax ban permanent.

Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 1998, and has temporarily extended the moratorium twice – once in 2001 and once more in 2003. The current moratorium will expire on November 1 of this year. Smith is also a cosponsor of H.R. 743, legislation which would make the moratorium permanent.

Repeated attempts to make the access tax permanent or extend it beyond four years were defeated at the committee level.

Wait a moment...are we creating yet another “false” controversy? The big, tough Republican is suggesting that Democrats are blocking this from being PERMANENT, and that is what is SO IMPORTANT in this matter. The committee just wouldn’t make it permanent after “repeated attempts”, but by GOD he’s cosponsoring a bill that would do just that!!

Of course, he fails to explain that the bill he talks about was introduced on 1/31/2007, and it took him 2 1/2 months until he signed onto it. Also, he fails to explain that the committee considering the bill that passed approved it UNANIMOUSLY, so maybe making it permanent wasn’t really as big of an issue as he thought it was.


H.RES.746 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

This sets forth the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 3773.

Can you predict the votes? Yep...the usual: Democrats for, Republicans saying ‘we don’t want to!”


H.R.3773 - To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

This bill revisit’s the FISA Court and the warrantless wiretapping issue. Debate was started, but then postponed until a later date. No votes were taken on passage.


H.RES.724 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2095) to amend title 49, United States Code, to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, to authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration, and for other purposes.

This sets forth the rules for consideration of H.R. 2095.

Republicans once again voted against considering it, but then FINALLY (in a rare move) consented to passage by voice vote.


H.R.2095 - To amend title 49, United States Code, to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, to authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration, and for other purposes.

This is known as the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007. Pretty self explanatory, but it addresses many safety issues and regulations.

There were 4 amendments offered, all of which were passed by a voice vote.

A Motion to Recommit was then made, asking that an amendment be inserted and reported back “forthwith”. The amendment would be to NOT change the name of the Federal Railroad Administration to the Federal Railroad Safety Administration. Rep. Bill Sali said it was a waste of money to make the change. Those opposed said cost wasn’t even an issue. For example, stationary would be used up with the old name before replacing with the new name.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 198-222-11. There were 13 Democrats that joined the Republicans in voting for this, while 11 Republicans joined with the Democrats to vote against it.
Smith voted for it.


The bill then PASSED on a vote of 377-38-16
Only 38 Republicans voted AGAINST the bill.

Smith voted for it.


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

For the last bill of the week, the day started with Republicans trying to block progress.

They made a motion to vote on approving the previous days journal.

The Journal was APPROVED 219-187-2-23.
FOR: 203 Democrats, 16 Republicans
AGAINST: 12 Democrats, 175 Republicans
PRESENT: 2 Republicans
NO VOTE: 16 Democrats, 7 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST approval.



H.R.976 - An act to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

This vote was to override the Presidential Veto of the first SCHIP Bill, which would require a two-thirds vote.

The Veto Override FAILED by a vote of 273-156-4
FOR: 229 Democrats, 44 Republicans
AGAINST: 2 Democrats, 154 Republicans
NO VOTE: 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST providing for the most needy children of the Third District, completely for political reasons.

Only 13 more Republicans were needed to override the veto. If it had passed the House, the Senate already had a veto-proof majority, showing that this was very much a bipartisan bill.

The Omaha World Herald published a story about the issue, “Lawmakers squirm over kids' health insurance”. They pointed out the very bogus argument by Smith:

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said he supports SCHIP, but the proposed expansion extends coverage too far.

"We need to be very careful in terms of growing government and especially as it relates to government-run health care," Smith said.

He took particular issue with the use of cigarette taxes to fund the expansion. The funding source is likely to prove unreliable, he said, as higher taxes prompt smokers to cut back.

Smith said he supports the president's proposal of increasing funding by $5 billion.

Except, that $5 Billion over 5 years would do nothing to account for inflation, or the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. That amount would not even continue coverage for the kids currently in the system. Many would get pushed back out. How very Christian of him.

There were additional statements published during this time as well:

KOTA: SMITH DEFENDS SCHIP VETO VOTE

NEBRASKA CONGRESSMAN ADRIAN SMITH SAYS HE COULDN'T SUPPORT THE VERSION OF THE S–CHIP PROGRAM VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT.

SMITH WAS AMONG REPUBLICANS VOTING TO UPHOLD THE VETO OF THE EXPANDED STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM. THE THIRD DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN SAYS IT WAS TROUBLESOME THAT THE BILL WOULD HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLED THE CURRENT PROGRAM.

"THAT, TO ME, SHOWS SIGNS THAT MAYBE THE PROGRAM NEEDS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IF IT NEEDS MORE THAN DOUBLE IN FUNDING," SAYS SMITH. "BUT IN MANY RESPECTS, THE PROGRAM IS WORKING FOR THOSE CHILDREN WHO NEED IT THE MOST AND WE NEED TO BE THERE FOR THOSE FOLKS."

SMITH SAYS HE COULD SUPPORT A MODEST FUNDING INCREASE IN S–CHIP, ESPECIALLY IF IT ENCOURAGES THOSE WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE TO CONTINUE THAT COVERAGE.

In other words - those kids eligible and NOT under the system due to lack of funding - well, let’s just ignore them because the system is working fine without them.

OWH: Compromise on insurance for children sought

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said the bill would have covered families with high incomes and relied on the "unstable funding source" of cigarette taxes.

Smith called on Congress to proceed in crafting a "sensible bill" that ensures the country's poorest children are covered.

And yet, we now know he never did anything to try and add to that discussion if it was such a concern to him. Lot of hot air being pumped out there....

Then Smith wrote a small Blog entry on The Hill:

The Hill: SCHIP Debate NOT about Low-Income Kids (Rep. Adrian Smith)

Yesterday, I voted to sustain President Bush’s veto. This debate is not about providing health care to America’s low-income children. That idea has widespread support — including mine — and SCHIP is an important part of reaching that goal. Instead of working to ensure those who need this assistance receive it, earlier this year Congress passed a bill that opens loopholes for illegal immigrants, expands the program to cover individuals with high incomes, encourages more federal spending, and forces the program to rely on an unstable funding source — increased cigarette taxes. The President was wise to veto it.

Now we must move forward and craft a sensible bill that makes sure the poorest children receive coverage. But time is of the essence. Political gamesmanship has delayed this matter for far too long already.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....of course, now we know he was lying with every breath.

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

The remaining bills passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.738 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Government of Syria's continued interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon.
H.R.2089 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the "Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office".
H.R.20 - To provide for research on, and services for individuals with, postpartum depression and psychosis.
H.R.2295 - To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry.
H.CON.RES.182 - Recognizing the need to pursue research into the causes, a treatment, and an eventual cure for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, supporting the goals and ideals of National Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week, and for other purposes.
H.CON.RES.222 - Commending NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia on the celebration of its 90th anniversary on October 26 and 27, 2007.
H.RES.549 - Recognizing the importance of America's Waterway Watch program, and for other purposes.


FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith made one floor statement this week:

TRIBUTE TO NEBRASKA NATIONAL GUARD 1074TH DIVISION

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, on Friday October 12, the Nebraska National Guard's 1074th returned to a hero's homecoming in North Platte, Nebraska. The 1074th, headquartered out of North Platte, with detachments in Broken Bow, Ogallala, and Sidney, Nebraska, returned to Nebraska after a year-long deployment to Iraq. While in Iraq, the 1074th Transportation Company's primary missions were convoy security and local humanitarian support.

The 1074th tragically lost one of their own. Sergeant Randy J. Matheny, a native of McCook, Nebraska, made the ultimate sacrifice to his country on February 4, 2007. I join my fellow Nebraskans in offering my sincere sympathy and continued thoughts and prayers for the Matheny family.

The reception the 1074th received from families, friends and supporters upon their return to Nebraska was truly inspiring, as thousands, literally thousands of well-wishers welcomed these American heroes home in an incredible display of patriotism and pride. I wish to convey appreciation to the 1074th upon their safe return to Nebraska, and certainly commend Nebraskans for their amazing show of support in giving our soldiers the warm, heartfelt reception they deserve.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week, but he did sign on as a cosponsor on 3 bills.


H.R.3779 - To require the Architect of the Capitol to permit the acknowledgment of God on flag certificates

This became yet another Republican “controversy” when the Architect of the Capitol said they weren’t going to automatically put “God” on flag certificates. This didn’t prevent Members of Congress putting it on themselves or making the request for it’s inclusion.

As a result of this “controversy” of such government-stopping importance, this bill was introduced on 10/9/2007. Smith then added his name on 10/16/2007.


H.R.3802 - To prohibit the collection of tolls on highways, bridges, and tunnels constructed using Federal funds.

Now why on earth would this be pushed? Aren’t MOST highways, bridges and tunnels constructed using at least SOME Federal funds? Are they trying to eliminate all toll roads? I wouldn’t mind, but then, it’s beneficial to those areas that have high traffic and more upkeep. Oh, and Nebraska doesn’t have any toll roads.

The bill was introduced on 10/10/2007. Smith added his name on 10/18/2007.


H.R.3888 - To provide for a 5-year SCHIP reauthorization for coverage of low-income children, an expansion of child health care insurance coverage through tax fairness, and a health care Federalism initiative, and for other purposes.

Ah, yet another “Republican” SCHIP Bill that would fail to provide for the children of this country. Another attempt by Smith to say: “See? I support it. I really do! Except, when I don’t get what I want.”

Smith signed on as one of the original cosponsors on 10/18/2007. He did so along with the Republican leadership that he follows so closely: Blunt, Boehner, and Cantor.


As of the end of this week of Congressional Actions:

- Smith has Sponsored 6 bills, and Cosponsored 96, for a total of 102.

- Among the 53 Freshmen members of Congress that started the same time he did, the average number of bills Sponsored is 10.7, the average Cosponsored is 203.9, for a total of 214.6.

- The median total number of bills sponsored and cosponsored is 196.

- Smith ranks number 50 out of 53 among freshman on this issue.



IN THE NEWS

Smith made sure to devote one of his columns to “Thanking American Sportsmen”. Here are some highlights:

Every year, thousands of hunters enjoy their sport safely and lawfully. Unfortunately, there are those few who either willfully or inadvertently fail to observe safety rules designed to protect the hunters and those around them.

This is a good time to be mindful of safety issues. Basic advice such as never drink alcohol while hunting, being mindful of your surroundings, and marking your targets should always be followed.

The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission provides firearm hunter education, taught by volunteer instructors. These lessons should be taken to heart, by both young hunters and experienced veterans….

Sportsmen make considerable contributions to our environment and our economy. To recognize this, late last month I supported, and the House of Representatives passed, the following measures:

H.Res. 634 - Encouraging participation in hunting and fishing, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Hunting and Fishing Day and the efforts of hunters and fishermen toward the scientific management of wildlife and conservation of the natural environment.

H.Res. 79 - Recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and the contributions of those programs' efforts to decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

H.Con.Res. 193 - Recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety.

These three bills acknowledged our hunters and anglers, and recognize their commitment to our society……

As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and Second Amendment Caucus, and a life-long member of the National Rifle Association, providing an opportunity for future generations to continue this tradition is a priority of mine in Congress, as I imagine it is for any Member of Congress who fondly remembers the excitement of Fall.

First off, the bills he mentions. The first two were passed by voice vote, and Smith did not cosponsor either one. So we have his word he voiced a “Yea” when the question was asked. The last he put his name on as a cosponsor about 3 weeks after it was introduced, and the vote was unanimous. Basically, everyone supported these, so it’s not some big “accomplishment” for Smith.

Second, the Caucuses. What’s the best way to explain these? I know I did once before.

Okay, here’s a comparison. I know several people (myself included) who are on Facebook. You get invites to “join this group” from your friends, or you find them yourselves. Beyond those being listed on your page, you will get the occasional announcement to “support this” or “do that” with those groups. That’s how you participate in them.

Caucuses are the same. Join as many as you want. But it doesn’t mean you’re ACTUALLY doing much of anything. As far as these caucuses, Smith really hasn't shown any bills or legislation that comes directly from them - except for maybe the one he consponsered.

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

Bush made a trade speech during the week, and Smith decided to comment on it:

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) – a member of the House Agriculture Committee and the Republican Whip Trade Team – today commented on remarks given today in Miami, Florida, by President Bush regarding U.S. Trade Policy.

“Nebraska’s agriculture producers, manufacturers, and services providers deserve more access to foreign markets. Opening new export markets has long been a priority of mine. It goes without saying agriculture markets are tremendously important to the Third District and the nation as a whole, and breaking down barriers to trade will allow Nebraska’s products to continue to compete in the global market place,” Smith said.

He follows it up with the usual dry statistics. Result of this? Nothing really. He just had to say something, I guess.

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

Smith has been following on the heals of some Republicans trying to make an issue out of something that actually isn’t an issue right now. There’s a big Republican move to force a vote on the Broadcast Freedom Bill, which would eliminate the Fairness Doctrine from being implemented ever again:

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) has signed onto a petition initiated by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), compelling House Leadership to bring up the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) for consideration on the House floor.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began mandating broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”....

In the mid-1980’s the FCC overturned the Fairness Doctrine and a court challenge upheld the FCC’s decision. Both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush actively opposed attempts to reinstate it. As a result, broadcasters today are able to speak freely and talk radio has emerged as a powerful medium of ideas and opinions.

On June 28, the House of Representatives passed a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine. The Broadcaster Freedom Act would prohibit the FCC from adopting rules or policies reinstating the Fairness Doctrine permanently.

“The exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions available on radio and television make our nation strong. I don’t always agree with what I hear, but I love the fact I live in a country where market-based principles have led to hundreds of options – from multiple channels of AM and FM radio, satellite radio services, the Internet, and television – all of which are free to air their views without fear of government reprisal. This bill is important and deserves a vote in Congress,” Smith said.

Now, here’s the problem with this. It’s not an issue. No one is really caring about it. A few Democrats mentioned it a couple times very early this year in passing to media, but NO ONE has suggested it be started up again. It’s a non-issue.

H.R.2905 would prevent the FCC from being able to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Of course, this kind of policy would have a huge, immediate impact on Fox News (along with all their broadcasts), and Rush Limbaugh. But people like Smith don’t think about the fact that this would also impact things like Air America and all their broadcasts.

The June 28 vote that Smith is talking about was H.R.2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. An amendment passed that no funds could be used to implement the Fairness Doctrine by a very large majority (304-115). Smith, of course, supported that amendment. HOWEVER, he voted AGAINST the final bill.


Overall, Smith is developing a pattern of shouting out on issues that trigger angry responses from the base. In doing so, they think “this guy is standing up for our moral values”. But shouting does very little. In the mean time, when it comes to substantive issues that affect everyone everyday, Smith is extremely quiet and sitting in the background, waiting for the leadership to point him in the right direction.

Does Smith Fear the Impact of Smith Watch?

A while back, I noticed that whenever I clicked on the link from my website to Adrian Smith’s Congressional website, I’d get the following message:

Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server.

I’m sure others have noticed this as well if they’ve tried.

So, I started getting in contact with the Blogger.com technical support to determine what the problem was.

We went through several different things that are usually tried to see if there is just some error happening: Deleted and reentered, tried taking the slash off at the end, added the link with AND without the “www” at the beginning, even tried to do a hand coding of the link rather than using the pre-set “widget” that stored a list of links. Nothing worked. The same error occurred.

Finally I asked the team: Could there be something on Smith's end actually blocking my site, maybe even on purpose? Is that even possible?


I got my response today. Some of it is technical, and I don’t understand it, but what the tech wrote is very clear in explaining what they found (emphasis is mine):

The problem isn't with your link. It's with THEIR server. It's rejecting (giving a 404) when the link comes from blogspot. What a douche this guy is. He's blocking requests when it comes from bloggers.

Ok, to explain. Whenever you click on a link, the browser sends off a request to the server...yadda yadda...included in that is the referrer of the page you came from. His Official Government Website, that WE pay for (well I'm guessing on that part), is throwing up a 404 when the referrer heading comes from blogspot.com. I tested from one of my test blogs and it doesn't work either, also uploaded a test page to googlepages (a different domain) and it works. So it really is blogspot they are blocking via the referrer.

Here's the rejected conversation from blogspot

http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.adriansmith.house.gov
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: 1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/ html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive
Referrer: http://nethirddistrict.blogspot.com/2007/11/smith-misleads-constituen...

HTTP/1.x 404 Not Found
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:00:21 GMT
Server: NOYB
Last-Modified: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:21:28 GMT
Etag: "57ca10-39a-4543ae00"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 922
Keep-Alive: timeout=2, max=1000
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
----------------------------------------------------------
Referrer from blogspot == page not found

Now, same thing with referrers turned off:

http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.adriansmith.house.gov
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: 1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/
html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive

HTTP/1.x 200 OK
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:04:48 GMT
Server: NOYB
Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT
Last-Modified: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:04:49 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-
check=0
Pragma: no-cache
Content-Encoding: gzip
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Length: 6577
Keep-Alive: timeout=2, max=1000
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

The ONLY difference between the two is the referrer. And the congressman's server is basically rejecting anything with a blogspot referrer. I'm tempted to say that maybe, just maybe this is some sort of technical error, but really there is no reason for that. It HAS to be done deliberately.

Looks like you can get a new blog post out of this. Congressman Adrian Smith is afraid of Bloggers!

So to sum up, everything on your end is correct. It's the dear congressman that is playing games. Notice how his taxpayer server is also configured to Identify itself as NOYB (none of your business). Nice guy. Nebraska huh? Without looking I'm going to guess he's a Republican.

And here's the link I made on a test blog
http://br-testing.blogspot.com/

It's being blocked as well. So it's anything from blogspot. Looking around, I don't see many others but you linking to him from blogspot, so it must've been you that scared him. Great Work!!!

That's just such a pathetic thing for them to do. I shouldn't be surprised I suppose, but good god.

So, it appears that any link from Blogspot is PURPOSELY BLOCKED FROM GAINING ACCESS.

That’s right, the website we pay for as taxpayers cannot be accessed in this manner. You can access the link on the New Nebraska Network site, but not through mine.

And it’s only Smith’s website that does it. If you look at the “Relevant Links” on the side of this webpage, you’ll see I’ve now added Nebraska's other 2 Congressmen, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry. When you click on their links, they go straight to their Congressional websites.

The question, then, is WHY would Adrian Smith and his staff do such a thing? Just what about a link to his Congressional website from mine is a concern to them? Could they actually be nervous about the things I expose about Smith on a regular basis?

When you combine this action, and the fact that they refused to provide copies of what are publically available reports (Financial Disclosed, Franked Mail, Gift and Travel) after months of attempts, this can only lead to one conclusion:

Adrian Smith fears dissent. He fears truth. He fears anything that shows the REAL Adrian, rather than the false image he continues to try and portray. In other words - HE FEARS ME!

The fact is that I, like anyone else, am a private, voting citizen of the 3rd District of Nebraska. And just like all other citizens of this District, my tax dollars pay his salary, and they pay for his website. Just like all citizens, I have a right to my opinions, and I have a right to voice those opinions, whether he agrees with them or not. I have a right to question him, I have a right to hold him accountable, and I have a right to demand that he represent EVERYONE: Not just those that voted for him, not just those that are in one party, not just those that paid for his campaign, and not just those that will never disagree with him.

These actions show a man that is NOT a Representative of the people he was elected to work for, and someone who fails to live up to the oath of office that he took. That oath states:

I solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Adrian Smith is not bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution by trying to limit dissent, or this case, do the childish act of blocking access from a specific site. He’s also not faithfully discharging the duties of his office, which is to serve ALL of his constituents.

Not only are his actions unjustified, they are downright pathetic, and he doesn’t deserve the title of Congressman.

Smith Misleads Constituents to Defend his Ongoing Oppositon to SCHIP

The State Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2007, or SCHIP, has continued to be at the top of the news. A new bill, taking the ideas of the first that fell to Bush’s veto and making changes to address any concerns by those opposed, has started through Congress. In the House, the bill passed, but as before, not with enough votes to override another threatened veto.

Third District Representative Adrian Smith has voted against this vital piece of legislation from the very beginning. In defense of his vote, he recently penned another of his columns ("Children's Health Insurance") stating the reasons why he voted against it. Unfortunately, in “setting the record straight”, he chose to once again mislead, and shall I say, lie to his constituents.

Let’s look at his statements, and just note that all sources will be indicated by a number this time, and listed at the end of the article (it‘s easier that way with so many this time):

To be clear: I support SCHIP. I support the idea behind it. I doubt if there is one member of Congress who would say he or she opposes the idea of poor children having access to quality health care.

His votes and the rest of this article clearly show otherwise. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

However, I don't support paying for the program through funds raised by taxing cigarettes; or taking 2 million children off the private insurance rolls and moving them into government run health insurance; or making it possible for illegal immigrants to receive federal benefits.

I’ll address the first two reasons, but as for the third, regarding illegal immigrants, to suggest that this bill allows that is a lie.

Sec. 605 of H.R. 3963 is very clear:

SEC. 605. NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS; DISALLOWANCE FOR UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES.

Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents. Titles XI, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act provide for the disallowance of Federal financial participation for erroneous expenditures under Medicaid and under CHIP, respectively.

Maybe Smith can explain what part of that says that illegals will get benefits.

A lot has been said about this bill. I want to set the record straight.

Actually, it will be me setting the record straight since Smith decided not to be up front and honest with his constituents.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, under H.R. 3963, two million individuals would opt out of private health insurance plans in order to receive government-run health care. I do not support government creating a program to directly compete against the private sector.

Yes, let’s take a closer look at the CBO’s Estimate of Changes in SCHIP and Medicaid Enrollment of Children. (1)

From 2008-2012, the 5 years the bill would cover, they ESTIMATE the following:

- 600,000 children would be removed from Medicaid and placed on SCHIP.
- Of the children currently uninsured, 2 million would receive SCHIP coverage, and 1.9 Million would become eligible for Medicaid.
- Of children currently insured, 1.5 Million would become eligible for SCHIP and 500,000 would become eligible for Medicaid.

By using the term “opt-out”, Smith is assuming that these children that are presently insured would have parents that all make the choice to take them off their existing insurance. What he’s failing to acknowledge is the fact that more and more families are losing their insurance every year, and that would account for some of those enrollments. Many of those children would become eligible NOT because of a “choice” by parents, but rather because the family either lost their insurance, or could no longer afford it. This could happen because of an employer no longer providing coverage, losing a job and getting a job where no insurance is provided, or becoming unable to pay the premiums for private insurance (which for a family of 4 could be well over $1200 per month).






As these 3 graphs show, uninsured children under 18 are the only ones who’s numbers have been dropping in recent years, starting with the introduction of SCHIP in Fiscal Year 1998. The number of employers providing health coverage has dropped dramatically, and the number of uninsured overall has been rising.

Sec. 116 of H.R. 3963 specifically addresses “Preventing Substitution of CHIP Coverage for private coverage.” (2) It allows for ongoing monitoring and adjusting of the best methodology possible to make sure the low-income children come first.

So, while some people could very well make a “choice” to “opt-out”, the VAST majority that will receive coverage under SCHIP will be people who can’t afford insurance for themselves or their children.

And there are even more facts regarding this issue that have to be considered. According to Factcheck.org (3):

The Congressional Budget Office director said he hasn't seen another policy proposal that would reach as great a level of the uninsured with as low of an effect on those who had private insurance.

Health care and government experts, including CBO Director Peter R. Orszag and MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, have said that when the government offers programs that target the uninsured, those programs will inevitably be used by some who already have or could have private insurance. Experts call this effect "crowd-out."

The House bill would extend coverage to a total of 7.5 million people, 5 million of whom are uninsured, while the Senate bill would reach 6.1 million, 4 million of whom are uninsured, according to CBO reports. The rest of those affected by the expansions would have private or other coverage. Those numbers give crowd-out rates of 32 percent for the House bill and 34 percent for Senate's. Orszag said of the House crowd-out effect, "given the scale of the net reduction in the uninsured, it’s pretty much as good as you’re going to get. In other words, I have not seen any other proposals to reduce the number of uninsured children by 5 million with crowd-out rates that are lower than 33 percent. Again, in the absence of a mandate on an employer, or a mandate on an individual, or a mandate on state governments, CBO does not believe you’re going to do much better than these kinds of crowd-out rates." (Our calculations show 32 percent from the CBO charts, which include numbers rounded to one decimal point.)

Orszag made those remarks at an Aug. 29 conference by The Alliance for Health Reform, where he also said that the bills included measures to minimize the crowd-out effect and that the Senate bill gave states incentives to target lower-income families. Gruber, who worked on the initial development of SCHIP, wrote in a letter to Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the energy and commerce committee, that "no public policy can perfectly target the uninsured," but that expansions like SCHIP are the most cost-effective ways of increasing health coverage.

Gruber: I have undertaken a number of analyses to compare the public sector costs of public sector expansions such as SCHIP to alternatives such as tax credits. I find that the public sector provides much more insurance coverage at a much lower cost under SCHIP than these alternatives. Tax subsidies mostly operate to "buy out the base" of insured without providing much new coverage.

As for SCHIP’s current crowd-out rate, a May 2007 CBO report said that estimates vary but that the figure is “most probably” between 25 percent and 50 percent.

The president says movement of people from private to public insurance under these bills is unacceptable, which is a matter of opinion. We feel this additional information is necessary to give a full picture of the bills' effects.

Finally for Smith to say that he’s against a program that would “compete against the private sector” again shows how out of touch he is. Why? Because if there are working families that can’t afford private insurance in the first place, how is there any competition? If SCHIP didn’t exist, there would only be one choice for these families: No insurance at all for their children. Adrian Smith doesn’t seem to realize that is a reality for too many in this country and competition has nothing to do with it. Even Gruber testified that trying a tax credit wouldn’t provide near the coverage that SCHIP is able to do.

Rather than requiring we first serve poor children before the program can be expanded, the bill contains an "income disregard loophole," allowing states to define "family income" as they see fit. As a result, under this bill, a family of five in New Jersey making $84,455 per year would still be eligible for SCHIP, even though its income exceeds 300 percent of federal poverty levels.

This is false. Now here are the facts.

Sec. 114 specifically notes that no child can be covered in a family that makes over 300% above the poverty level. (2) New York previously tried to get an exception, requested by Governor Eliot Spitzer, for coverage up to 400% of the poverty level, or $82,600. This request was denied by President Bush. (3)

The legislation currently being offered does allow for an exception for states that have “an approved State plan amendment or waiver”. But this waiver must be approved and Bush will retain the right to continue denying those requests.

Factcheck.org explains it better (3):

The new legislation would rescind the Aug. 17 letter from HHS that required states to meet certain requirements before they could raise eligibility above 250 percent of the poverty level. Instead, HHS would issue new requirements for states seeking to increase their caps above 300 percent. After Oct. 1, 2010, states failing to meet those requirements wouldn’t get federal funds for children above that 300 percent mark (see Sec. 116 of the bill).

Also, states that meet the requirements and extend eligibility above 300 percent of the poverty level would get a reduced federal matching rate for children in families above that 300 percent threshold. States that already have a higher cap (only New Jersey) and those that were about to put one in place (only New York) would be exempt from that federal match restriction. So, New York could increase its income eligibility cap to $82,600 for a family of four for at least two years, until late 2010, as long as the state’s plan is approved by HHS. After that, to continue getting funds for children above the 300 percent level, the state would have to meet the federal government’s new guidelines.

The fact is that right now, under current law, the only state that covers over 300% is New Jersey, which is set at 350%. They would have to drop that now to the level in the bill, unless they got approval from HHS. States set their own levels, and presently, only 9 States, and the District of Columbia, cover at the 300% level or above (with NJ being at 350%). Another 9 states cover under 200% of the poverty level (Nebraska being one of them at 185%). The remaining 33 states cover children at 200-275% of the poverty level. (3)

Another thing. Adrian Smith keeps stressing this covers “poor children”. That’s also misleading. The “poor” children are already covered by Medicaid, while SCHIP covers the “low-income” children.

Again, according to Factcheck.org:

The stated intent of Congress when it established the program in 1997 was to expand coverage beyond those who were poor to "uninsured low-income" children. And in Washington-speak, there's a significant difference between "poor" and "low-income."

Congress didn't specify exactly what it meant by "low-income" in the bill that became law or the conference report that accompanied it on final passage, and reasonable people can certainly come up with different definitions. However, if one defines "low" as meaning "lower than most families make," then there is plenty of room to expand the current SCHIP program without violating the original aim stated by Congress in 1997.

The fact is, it is more likely than not that this bill would never cover families making $84,000. If it got approved, it would only be in 2 states: New York and New Jersey.

The 2006 Deficit Reduction Act requires proof of citizenship to receive Medicaid benefits - including driver's licenses, passports, and U.S. birth certificates. This SCHIP bill substantially weakens these documentation requirements by allowing states to verify citizenship through the presentation of an easily falsified or stolen Social Security number.

Adrian Smith takes the extreme on this, but fails to explain what the issue really is.

While the bill allows for verification of the Social Security number, name and date of birth with the Social Security Administration in lieu of documents, this does not create an “easy” way for falsification. If there are any inconsistencies, the application will not be approved until verification can be obtained.

Why did they do this? Because the process was actually causing problems for people who were eligible.

According to a letter from the CBO to Nancy Pelosi (4), they report that:

Under current law, individuals who apply for Medicaid and claim to be U.S. citizens are required to provide certain documents (such as a passport or birth certificate, and, in certain circumstances, a driver's license or other documentation that establishes identity) to demonstrate that they are citizens. That provision was enacted in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, Public Law 109-171), and has been effective since July 1, 2006. (Before the DRA provision took effect, those individuals were permitted to attest to their citizenship, under penalty of perjury.)

Section 211 would allow states the option to either use the requirements created in the DRA for citizenship documentation under Medicaid or instead verify an individual’s name and Social Security number with the Social Security Administration. Some states have reported a drop in enrollment since implementation of the DRA because some Medicaid applicants have had difficulty satisfying the documentation requirement. Available evidence, based on state reports and other information provided by state officials, suggests that virtually all of those who have been unable to provide the required documentation are U.S. citizens.

So Smith would rather risk the vast majority of eligible children being denied coverage just to avoid a small number of ineligible children getting into the program.

Even the Social Security Administration (SSA) admits a social security number does not prove citizenship eligibility, stating "the name/Social Security Number verification process only indicates whether this information matches SSA's records" and "would not provide for verification of citizenship."

Yet this has been the same process employers have been asked to use to verify if someone they are hiring is legally eligible to work in this country. Apparently, for Smith, that’s good enough for the employers, but not good enough for children in need. But which ones deserve the most protections: Employers or Children? To put it another way - if a child that may not be eligible still gets health care and is raised healthy and happy, doesn't it benefit us all in the long run?

This bill is paid for by a 61-cent increase on cigarette taxes. This is a diminishing source of revenue as the number of smokers decreases each year. Instead, we will have to either revisit this issue - i.e. raise taxes - or we are going to need more smokers. In fact, some estimates suggest we would need more than 22 million new smokers to pay for this massive expansion.

A poll conducted in joint cooperation by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health from October 8-13, 2007, showed that 70% of the public supported the expansion of SCHIP, including paying for it through an increase in tobacco taxes. (5)

To be quite frank, outside of the ultra-conservative, anti-tax groups, and the tobacco companies, opposition to an increase in the tobacco tax is hard to find. Why? Because cigarettes are a health hazard. If they cost more, people are less inclined to spend the money to buy them. If there is less smoking, this creates an overall health benefit, both physically and financially, to all Americans.

And that’s not just me saying that. According to a 1990 Surgeon General’s Report:

"The health benefits of higher cigarette taxes are substantial. By reducing smoking, particularly among youth and young adults, past tax increases have significantly reduced smoking-related morbidity and mortality." (6)

As for the “22 million new smokers”, this is a number thrown out by the Heritage Foundation (7), a highly partisan, ultra-conservative group who works very closely with such groups as the Club for Growth. In their article against the SCHIP bill and the revenue coming from a tax increase on the smokers, they argue that between 2010 and 2017, 22.4 Million new smokers would be needed. However, this bill covers 2008 to 2012. Their own numbers put that increase to 6.3 Million by the end of this bills authorization period. But even that can’t even be considered because they provide a very convoluted “methodology” and even then say they “projected” (rather, guessed) the rest. (8)

The CBO, however, estimated a revenue stream that is at $7.6 Billion in 2009, and drops to $7.2 Billion by 2012. They also considered that the number of smokers would drop at a predictable rate, and they are a non-biased source, unlike the Heritage Foundation. (1)

The bill also dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year after enactment by 84 percent, from $13.75 billion in the first six months to $1.15 billion. Again, we are simply putting off potential tax increases until the future.

Smith really needs to learn how to read legislation and understand what it actually says.

Sec. 101 of the bill is very clear on the funding amounts for each fiscal year (2). As for what he pointed out:

Fourth Year - FY2011 - $13.75 Billion
Fifth Year - FY 2012 - 2 Payments of $1.15 Billion Each (total $2.3 Billion).

And let’s look at that CBO report again, because it clearly shows that Smith's contention of a "potential tax increase" is not supported.

When you include both off and on-budget revenues that cover the projected spending on the expanded part of SCHIP, they show that in 2008 and 2009, there is an estimated SURPLUS of revenue (minus the SCHIP spending) of $3.9 and $2.9 Billion. In 2010, the revenue and spending cancel each other out. Then in 2011 and 2012, spending will outpace revenues by $2 Billion and $3.8 Billion respectively. In total, over the full 5 years of the bill, they estimate a $900 Million SURPLUS in revenues. (1) Keep in mind, Smith keeps quoting them, so he can't turn around and try and argue against these estimates.

In conclusion: SCHIP will NOT result in a need for an increase in other taxes beyond the tobacco taxes. For Smith to suggest otherwise is a lie.

According to the CBO, the legislation we most recently passed actually covers 400,000 fewer children than the original bill, even though the cost of the bill has increased from $34.9 billion to $35.4 billion. That's right - this bill actually covers fewer children even though it costs more. Only in Washington!

Again, Smith needs to learn to read the CBO reports closer, because while at first glance it says this, the final result is FAR different. This statement is very misleading, but are we surprised anymore?

On the first bill that Bush vetoed, HR 976, the CBO report did show that for expansion of SCHIP the cost would be $34.9 billion and would cover 7.8 million under SCHIP. The latest bill, per CBO, would cost $35.4 billion and cover 7.4 million children - a decrease of 400,000. (9)(10)

HOWEVER.....

This bill provides for both Medicaid eligible children, and SCHIP eligible children. As a result, the CBO estimates include both. Here is what the full estimate says (in millions):

HR 976
SCHIP Total - 7.8
Medicaid Total - 26.3
SCHIP/MED Total - 34.1

HR 3963
SCHIP Total - 7.4
Medicaid Total - 26.7
SCHIP/MED Total - 34.1

The total number covered IS THE SAME. (1)(9)

ALSO, lets look at the TOTAL spending for both bills, not just the section looking only at SCHIP:

HR 976 = $55.9 Billion
HR 3963 = $54.3 Billion

Yes, you’re seeing that right. Under the new proposed bill, the cost would be $1.6 Billion LESS than the first bill. Also, there would be an estimated 400,000 children that would be eligible for Medicaid rather than SCHIP, most likely on the borderline between Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility.

We have a number of health care challenges in our country. We have yet to pass legislation creating association health plans; we have yet to meaningfully deal with the high cost of prescription drugs; we have yet to outline a strategy to insure every family in America.

But Adrian Smith has yet to put out a bill that covers any one of these things he just listed. If he’s so concerned, what exactly is he doing about them? Waiting for one of the Republicans he follows to put out a bill he can add his name to? Where’s his leadership in the issue? Like I’ve said before, actions speak louder than words and his are hollow.

The majority party had the chance to put politics aside and work with both the minority party and the President to craft a bill all could agree with. SCHIP program was created a decade ago in a bipartisan fashion, and that is how Congress should proceed.

If Congress cannot come to the table to draft a reauthorization of SCHIP, what does that say about all we have left to do?

We need to stop jeopardizing the health care of children just to score political points.

The Majority Party has been representing the Majority of the people in this country. The Majority of people feel that children should be taken care of. They should have health care. The idea of SCHIP was very bipartisan, and it still is today. Several Republicans have taken the lead on this issue, the biggest proponent being Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

But I got a heads up about a Congress Daily AM article (sorry, no link) that shows that many on both sides of the aisle are trying to work togethe. Here are a few key highlights from the article:

SCHIP Sponsors Looking Past Bush

Senate sponsors of a children's health bill appear to be attempting an end-run around the White House in their negotiations with House GOP members.

Finance Chairman Baucus said Wednesday that the handful of House Republicans who are seeking changes to the bill have accepted a 61-cent per-pack increase in the federal tobacco tax to raise $35 billion in new money for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"Frankly, there's an agreement on $35 billion, covering more kids," Baucus said Wednesday after his second meeting of the day with House Republicans.

"Maybe I'm missing something here, but tobacco taxes haven't come up."

Speaking of the House Republicans who are meeting with Finance Committee members, Baucus said, "They're cognizant of the president's reason for a veto, but they also want to get something done."

The administration issued a statement Wednesday reiterating its complaints against the SCHIP bill, as well as a promise to veto the measure if it does not change.

The most recent complaint from the administration involves the 61-cent per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax, which raises $35 billion in new money for SCHIP. Bush told Republicans Tuesday that he would veto any bill that included such a tax increase.

Finance ranking member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Iowa reporters Wednesday that Bush's comments creates "a whole new ballgame" for negotiators.

"Maybe it makes negotiations impossible," he said. "I have been at this for six months and we did not discuss anything but a cigarette tax" to pay for the expansion. "The president making it a part of the debate is really a shock to me," he added.
..........

Reps. John (Randy) Kuhl, R-N.Y., Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., and Joseph Knollenberg, R-Mich., attended the afternoon meeting Wednesday.

It looks like there is a lot of bipartisan effort going on to work something out. And it’s a good sign that Nebraska’s Jeff Fortenberry at least appears to be willing to listen and discuss the issue.

But where is Adrian Smith?

I guess if his article is any indication, then it’s clear he’s the one that is more interested in playing politics and spinning lies to try and make himself look good, while others do all the work and actually try to accomplish something. He’s more willing to sacrifice the health and welfare of our nations children to score political points from extremists that will fund his reelection campaign, rather than actually doing what is right for the people of his district.

But are we surprised?

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

Sources:

(1) CBO Report: HR 3963 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

(2) H.R.3963 - To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

(3) Factcheck.org: Bush's False Claims About Children's Health Insurance, Updated: September 24, 2007

(4) CBO Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, October 25, 2007

(5) NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health: Public Views on SCHIP Reauthorization Survey Highlights

(6) AP: Compromises Sought on Kids' Health, October 30, 2007

(7) Heritage Foundation: 22 Million New Smokers Needed: Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax, July 11, 2007

(8) Heritage Foundation: 22 Million New Smokers Needed: Methodological Appendix, July 11, 2007

(9) CBO Report: HR 976 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

(10) H.R.976 - An act to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.