JK maintains his focus on the Middle East and the scope of activities that various agencies of our government are engaged in that affect the peace and security of the region. After reviewing an AP report about Iranian and Chinese acquisitions from the Defense Department via third party buyers, the senator called for an investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Washingon Post notes:

The surplus sales include parts for F-14 “Tomcat” fighter jets, a plane retired last year by the United States and now flown only by Iran. Iran bought the jets in the 1970s before the U.S. government banned most exports, including defense-related sales, to the Mideast country.

“There is no way that Iran should be getting these sensitive military parts, especially with the situation in the Mideast so turbulent,” Kerry said.

Federal investigators say that in at least one instance, gear purchased from Pentagon surplus got to Iran. A Pakistani arms broker bought Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale, and those parts made it to Iran, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Sensitive surplus is supposed to be rendered useless for military purposes or, if sold, then only to buyers who promise to obey U.S. arms embargoes and other laws.

Defense Department official Fred Baillie said the Pentagon did nothing wrong in selling the surplus and that it was not the agency’s fault the items wound up in the wrong hands.

[...]

Customs and GAO officials worry about security problems with the program, however, and are seeking assurances the Pentagon will not sell surplus parts from the recently retired F-14 fleet.

  <!-more-> Something about the tone of the Defense Department official’s comment sounds like an exchange with a older child who protests that he can’t help it if a younger sibling got hold of the dangerous plaything he left laying around, and then shared it with the neighbor kids. Someone needs to step in as an adult and say “think about the consequences of your actions—you are responsible for securing your playthings”. The senator has it right.

 

Sen. Kerry Stands Behind New England Patriots,

Challenges Indiana Sen. Bayh to Put His Caramel Corn Where His Mouth Is

Predicts Brady and Co. Will Advance to Superbowl

Senator Kerry (D-Mass.) today made a bet with his colleague from Indiana, Sen. Evan Bayh (D–Ind.), predicting that the Patriots would beat the Colts this Sunday in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship game. Kerry offered to present Bayh and his staff with a hearty helping of Boston clam chowder if the Patriots lose this weekend in Indianapolis. In exchange, Bayh agreed to provide Kerry’s camp with an old Hoosier State favorite – South Bend Factory Chocolate Crunch, caramel corn drizzled with milk chocolate – if the Colts fall to the Patriots in this weekend’s game.

“The only thing I love more than watching the Patriots play is watching them beat the Colts,” Kerry said. “Overcoming an injury-plagued season, the Patriots have managed another outstanding finish – fighting their way into the playoffs and containing one of the most potent offenses in the league.”

The friendly bet follows the Patriots’ win this past weekend against the heavily-favored San Diego Chargers.

 

We talk about the Iraq War, oil and energy independence, global warming in the light of American politics and legislation quite a bit. Here’s a reminder from the keepers of the Doomsday Clock that there are others who are concerned with these issues.

From the Times Online UK,

The keepers of the so-called Doomsday Clock, which counts down to Armageddon, today moved its hands closer to midnight for the first time in four years to reflect the growing threats to mankind from nuclear proliferation and climate change.

In a ceremony hosted by the British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, the minute hand was moved forwards by two minutes to stand at five minutes to midnight – the closest it has come to midnight since the Cold War arms race of the 1980s.

  <!-more-> The Times report continues:

The decision by the directors of the Bulletin of the the Atomic Scientists was made in consultation with the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel laureates.

The BAS said that the world faced its most critical choices since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War.

“We stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices,” it said.

“North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth.”

The BAS statement continues: “The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival.”

Quite a change from the days in the 1990s when the minute hand stood at 17 and 14 minutes to midnight in a post-Cold War thaw.

Just another reminder of the importance of these topics.

 

[Editor’s Note: Here’s a tale of budgeting that may sound familiar. Many thanks to guest blogger Rick Albertson for sharing it with us.]

Joe & Jane Citizen – Lessons on Budgeting

It’s that time of year again, when legislators wrangle back and forth about how the country is going to spend its money. Essential budget bills are held up in Congress while every item gets pushed and prodded, amendments and earmarks are inserted and removed, supplemental funding clauses added and subtracted, and approximately-acceptable compromises are worked out in the House and Senate. Then they are sent upstream to the legislative branch, where the president gets to exercise his power of the pen over line items before the annual budget is finally passed into law.

This year the budgeting process is particularly critical, with military funding and financial reforms at the top of everybody’s hot list. The legislative branch knows there’s a great deal at stake this time, and the executive branch is all set to go toe-to-toe with the lawmakers when it comes down to who gets money for what. Because of the key issues involved, the press and the voters are watching Washington’s every move with unusually intense interest this year as well.

“Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.”
   —Otto von Bismarck

Bismarck’s statement about laws and sausages is true at any time, but it’s truer than ever at times like this when such huge sums of money are involved. The public is expecting to get plenty of steak as well as sizzle for its hard-earned tax dollars. But when the process finally grinds out a ton of sausage instead, though, the public ends up scratching its collective head and asking “Huh? How did that happen?” instead.

Appropriations bills, and for that matter any other kind of bills, are incredibly complicated documents by the time they ever come up for a vote. Even the simplest, most obvious proposal gets bogged down in subclauses and disquisitions and legal caveats and so on before it ever gets introduced, and then they all get even more weighted down with amendments and exceptions and corollary clauses and such before they ever reach the floor. The bigger the bill, the more barnacles that it’s encrusted with before it ever even leaves the dock.

That’s why it’s equally inaccurate to make oversimplified statements like “Congressman X voted against tax cuts for the middle class” and “Representative Y voted to spend billions on selfish pork-barrel projects” and “Senator Z voted not to fund our brave troops fighting overseas.” The devil is in the details, and boy howdy, are there ever a devilish bunch of details to deal with whenever we look at the legislative process. So let’s see if we can’t use a simpler example to address this topic instead:

Let’s say that Joe and Jane Citizen have two kids, Jody and Jill Citizen. It’s time for Jody and Jill to go back to school in the fall. They need all kinds of stuff for the new school year—notebooks and pencils and backpacks, shoes and shirts and skirts, soccer balls and gymnastics outfits, you know the drill. That’s a lot of stuff. How much is it going to cost, and who’s going to pay for it, and how?

So Joe and Jane have to sit down and work out all the details before they can even start to shop for the kids’ school needs. How much do they have to spend? They add up what’s left in their paychecks every month after taxes, SSI, etc. They balance that number out against what it costs to pay the mortgage every month, the utilities, the car and health insurance, the groceries, etc. Then they can see what they have left to work with for the kids’ back-to-school stuff. <!-more-> So then Joe and Jane have to sit down and figure out what the kids’ stuff is actually going to cost this year. The odds are pretty good that what they have to work with is less than what it’ll cost to get the kids all the stuff they need, or at least all the stuff they want. This is when it starts getting messy, because the devil is in the details.

Joe and Jane both agree that to make this work, they’ll have to cut expenses wherever they possibly can. So they forget about putting money into the kids’ college fund again this year, because that’s a laudable goal but they need to focus on what the kids need for school right here, right now. Some things are pretty much a given: books are books, backpacks are backpacks, and ya gotta have ‘em, so that’s that. But in the real world, shoes aren’t always shoes, and all that other stuff isn’t always a given either.

So Joe says, “Well, I know that Jody has to have new shoes, but I don’t think he really has to have the hundred-dollar sneakers he’s asking for.” And then Jane says, “Well, I know that Jill’s gymnastics classes aren’t absolutely necessary, but they really make her happy and besides, the personal discipline she’s learning in those gymnastics classes is one reason her grades went up last year.”

So Joe and Jane keep sitting down and they keep figuring it out until they come up with something that pretty much works, more or less. Jody does get his new shoes, but he doesn’t get the hundred-dollar sneakers. Jill does get to take gymnastics classes again this year, but she won’t get to go to computer camp next summer too because there’s just not enough money to pay for both right now.

Jody gets the new glasses he definitely needs and Jill gets the braces her dentist says she needs. But Joe doesn’t get the new glasses his eye doctor says he needs, because there’s just not enough money left in the till to pay for both right now. And Jane skips lunches at the office to save money, and she works extra overtime to help pay for Jill’s braces, even though that means she also has less time to spend helping Jill with her homework after gymnastics class.

And so it goes. You know the drill. It’s a constant battle of give-and-take, of trading these means off against those ends, of balancing one set of needs against another set of needs and weighing all of them against these choices and those options. Eventually it all gets done. The kids get the stuff they get and they go back to school. And Jody complains to his pals about how his parents don’t care about him because they stuck him with these crummy ol’ cheap sneakers. Jill’s bummed out about having to miss computer camp this year, but at the same time she’s happy because at least she gets to keep doing her gymnastics.

Meanwhile Joe gets eyestrain headaches and squints a lot, and Jane is exhausted by the time she gets home from work. And God only knows how they’ll manage to pay for college when that comes around. But they both know that everything’s a compromise and the devil’s in the details and so life goes on somehow.

So how are you going to summarize all of that in 5-second sound bites and 2-sentence talking points? ... “Joe is anti-education because he voted against letting children go to computer camps” ... “Jane is a bad mother because she’d rather work than stay at home with her kids” ... “The economy’s in trouble because people like Joe and Jane are spending money on non-essentials rather than putting it into private accounts for their future retirement” ... and so it goes.

You see what I mean here? You ask for a steak, but you end up with a sausage. That’s unfortunate, but it’s also inevitable. And after-the-fact talking-point statements like “Senator Z voted against funding our troops and defending our country” are every bit as invalid as statements like “Joe is anti-education and Jane’s a bad mom.”

Everything’s a compromise. The devil is in the details. And it’s never that simple. Not in the real world, anyway.

  --   Rick Albertson

 

Martin Luther King: Beyond Vietnam—A Time to Break Silence

 

From a speech delivered by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. on 4 April 1967 at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.

The complete speech is moving and wise beyond its time and can be read in its entirety here.

 

JK on CNN – Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

JK pulled no punches in his discussion with Wolf Blitzer on Late Edition this morning. He repeated his call for a firm deadline for withdrawal and referred to the ISG report’s outline of a withdrawal process as a key consideration. He said again that there needs to be an immediate international effort between Iraq and all of its neighbors to reach an accord which will provide stability to the region. Important points that, as Mr. Blitzer acknowledged, he’s been saying for a long time.

Late Edition Transcript | Video

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

The NY Times editorial board today expressed a view that many hold:

It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war. Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the president. They understand that what the country urgently needs is for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind.

The president’s disconnect goes far to explain the harshly critical reaction of Congress and the public to his plan to further bleed America’s overstretched forces by sending some 20,000 additional troops in an attempt to impose peace on Baghdad’s vengeful streets. He proposes to do that without any enforceable commitments from the Iraqi government that it will take the necessary political steps that are the only hope for tamping down a spiraling civil war.

There are no really satisfying answers in Iraq, since all of the remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others, and Mr. Bush has come up with possibly the worst. He would mortgage thousands more American lives and what remains of Washington’s credibility in the region to a destructively sectarian Shiite government that he seems unwilling or unable to influence or restrain.

The editorial went on to outline points of action that affirm the wisdom of JK’s prior calls for action in Iraq:

And so long as any American troops remain in Iraq, Mr. Bush must put serious pressure on Mr. Maliki to support the troops’ efforts with a genuine program of national reconciliation. That must include, at a minimum, ridding the police and other security services of killers, torturers and criminals and disarming all sectarian militias.

The government must also assure that Iraqi oil revenues are fairly shared out among the entire Iraqi population. And it must move quickly to offer an amnesty to Sunni insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and narrow the legal restrictions on former Baath Party members so that Sunni professionals can once again fully participate in Iraqi national life.

These benchmarks should be accompanied by fixed timelines. And they must be accompanied with a clear message that the United States is prepared to withdraw its troops if the Iraqis continue to refuse to take responsibility for their own future. Mr. Bush and other American officials need to make clear that as much as the United States will suffer from a complete collapse in Iraq, Iraq’s leaders will suffer far worse from the loss of their American protectors.

Mr. Bush should reinforce that message by convening a conference of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss how they can help stabilize Iraq — and what they can do to contain the wider chaos should it come. With nearly two million Iraqis already seeking refuge, mainly in Syria and Jordan, it is far past time for American officials to begin their own planning and relief efforts.

As Wolf Blitzer noted, JK has been speaking about this for sometime.

June 28, 2005 JK on the Senate floor

Getting it right also means using our overwhelming leverage to get the Iraqis to do their part. ... Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for the training of Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It’s the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal. ... Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers – it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

Getting it right also means understanding the neighborhood – and getting those with an interest in Iraq, like the Saudis, to act now. Iraq is surrounded by Sunni neighbors with significant resources, yet complaints about being left out fall on deaf ears. They could do so much more to help, and we should encourage them. Even short-term improvements, such as providing electricity from their power grids, or supplying diesel fuel – an offer made yet unfulfilled by the Saudis – will go a long way. But we have to do our part and address their legitimate concerns if we want these nations to step up to the plate and help us secure Iraq’s borders, bring Sunnis into the political process, or rebuild Iraq’s economy and infrastructure. We must offer a coherent strategic plan for regional security. We must address their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent, and their concerns about our sporadic mediation between Israel and the Palestinians. This Administration needs to show that it understands there has to be some give and take.

<!-more-> June 28, 2005 The New York Times, “The Speech the President Should Give “

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments.

June 20, 2006 JK & Russ Feingold on dailykos.com, “Set A Deadline for Iraq”

It is time to set a schedule with the new Iraqi government for the redeployment of American combat forces. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency. There is no doubt that much of the instability in Iraq is being fueled by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces and conducting targeted anti-terrorist operations should remain.

Key to this transition is a long overdue engagement in serious and sustained diplomacy. To give Iraq its best hope for a peaceful future, convene a summit that includes the leaders of that country, its neighbors, and representatives from the Arab League, NATO, the UN and the European Union to forge the comprehensive political solution that is necessary to bring stability to Iraq. Making it clear that America will not stay in Iraq forever pressures the regional players to step up and assume their fair share of the burden – indeed it may be the only step that will get Iraqis’ neighbors directly, and positively, engaged in helping establish the stability of Iraq.

October 26, 2005 Speech at Georgetown University

“The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes.’ To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political statement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. ... The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so a majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn.”

October 26, 2005 Speech at Georgetown University

“It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.”

December 24, 2006 The Washington Post, “When Resolve Turns Reckless”:

We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you’re only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can’t answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops.

 

In case you missed it in all the action this week, let us point out that the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2007, a.k.a. the Net Neutrality Act, was introduced on Tuesday in the Senate Commerce Committee by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Informationweek reports that it drew “immediate praise from groups that lobbied for the legislation last year.”

JK is one of the co-sponsors of the bill which will be of benefit to small businesses and a group of people we’re not uninterested in – bloggers!

According to Informationweek:

The bill marks the beginning of this year’s debate over network neutrality. It would ensure that broadband service providers do not prioritize some Internet content, applications or services over other content, applications or services.

Some providers have proposed giving priority to content from sources paying higher fees. They have argued that prioritization and tiered pricing would allow them to increase funding for network improvements. Critics have argued that would create disadvantages for individual bloggers, small businesses and regular citizens, whose sites are as easy to access as those run by major corporations.

“The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field,” Dorgan said. “The marketplace picked winners and losers, not some central gatekeeper. That freedom ” the very core of what makes the Internet what it is today ” must be preserved.”

The New York Times mentions:

In the House, Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, said recently that he would introduce legislation soon and planned to hold hearings.

JK introduced another bill on Tuesday, the Wireless Innovation Act of 2007, which will make broadband available to unconnected communities by exploiting the unused frequencies in the broadcast spectrum known as “white spaces.” Kerry introduced the same bill in the 109th Congress, however it was not acted on by the full Senate. <!-more-> The Democratic Daily has a complete description of the bill:

In the spirit of the President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal “Rural Electrification” package, which expanded access to electricity for thousands of American families, Kerry’s bill would serve communities large and small, enabling the delivery of broadband that will connect business owners with their customers, students with dynamic new learning resources and first responders with victims in crisis.

“Just as President Roosevelt recognized a responsibility to make electricity available to rural families in his New Deal, and just as President Eisenhower recognized the necessity of a National Highway System that would enable substantial economic growth in the country, it is time for us to make this technology available to the hard-to-reach communities that need it – rural and urban,” Kerry said. “At a time when the U.S. is lagging behind much of the world in broadband penetration – and more than 60% of the country does not subscribe to broadband service primarily because it is either unavailable or unaffordable – this legislation would put this country one step closer to achieving ubiquitous broadband Internet access throughout America.”

“In contrast to Roosevelt’s sweeping changes, this administration has pledged ubiquitous Broadband access by 2007, but has taken few concrete actions to achieve that goal. On the contrary, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seems intent to inexplicably drag its feet on this measure – despite broad bipartisan support in the Congress, as indicated by the Senate Commerce Committee’s unanimous acceptance of a similar measure last year.” Kerry pledged to build bipartisan support for the measure and seek immediate passage.

The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet.

“This is about harnessing the spirit of American innovation, where we all share in the expansion of the internet’s reach. Our economy, our schools and our families are counting on us to make affordable broadband a reality everywhere.”

Broadcasting & Cable also took note of the introduction of the WIN act as did the nonpartisan organization, Free Press.

Ben Scott, Policy Director for Free Press, issued a statement applauding JK’s leadership and noted:

This bill holds the potential to create universal, affordable broadband access across the United States.

“Greater access to unlicensed spectrum in the low-frequency bands would improve local emergency communications networks, nurture the growth of small business and entrepreneurship, generate competition in the broadband market, and ensure that underserved areas are not left behind as technology advances in the 21st century.

“The expansion of unlicensed spectrum in particular will create a boom in innovative technologies and expand the opportunities for citizens to communicate. The unlicensed spectrum currently available — just 2 percent of the total spectrum that is commercially available — already has spurred entrepreneurship and technological innovation, generating billions of dollars in new business for manufacturers, retailers and providers. This is a critical issue whose time has come.”

 

  Senate Unanimously Passes Kerry Bill to Deny Pensions to Dishonest Lawmakers “Duke Cunningham Act” protects Americans from paying for the benefits of disgraced members of Congress

Washington, DC—Today, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment authored by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) to the ethics bill. The amendment strives to restore some of the trust Congress has lost in recent years by cancelling taxpayer-funded pension benefits to Members of Congress convicted of serious ethics offenses – crimes such as bribery or conspiracy. The amendment passed 87-0, and the broader legislation is expected to come up for a final vote next week.

“The best way to restore and rebuild the trust of the American people is to ensure that we stand firmly against members of Congress who betray the public trust. With this vote, we are preventing members of Congress who steal or cheat from receiving a lifelong pension that is paid for by the taxpayers. This legislation strips away the federal pensions of Members of Congress convicted of white collar crimes such as bribery and fraud – those lawmakers deserve nothing but shame.”

[...]

Under current law, only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, causes a U.S. Representative or Senator to lose his Congressional pension. Members of Congress convicted of white collar crimes still receive these federal retirement benefits.

[...]

Facing the largest Congressional bribery scandal since the 1980s, former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, Cunningham admitted to a pattern of bribery lasting close to five years, with federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter. Unless the law is changed, legislators who breach the public trust in the future, like Cunningham, will be allowed to continue receiving Congressional pensions of approximately $40,000 per year.

Under Kerry’s bill, the following offenses would cause a Member of Congress to forfeit the Congressional pension:

- Bribery of public officials and witnesses (Section 201 of Title 18); - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States (Section 371 of Title 18); - Perjury committed under the statues of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy; and - Subordination of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual.

Although the bill is inspired by the crimes of former Congressman Duke Cunningham, the law would not be retroactive in scope, and therefore would not affect Cunningham directly. A retroactive law of that nature would be unconstitutional. Kerry and Salazar originally introduced this legislation on February 9, 2006.

This act approved today will go into effect in 2009.

 

ALERT: JK will be on the Ed Schultz Radio Show today at 1:30 pm EST, talking about Rice, Iraq, Iran Syria, and the Pats

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

This is from yesterday’s SFRC hearing on Iraq. Sec. of State Rice was the witness before the committee and what follows is an excerpt of the exchange between her and JK.

Additional excerpts from the transcript are available here including the exchanges between Sec. Rice and Senators Kerry, Dodd, Hagel, Feingold and Webb.

Video of the SFRC hearing on Jan 10, 2007 is available here (realplayer only).

Video of the SFRC hearing on Jan. 11, 2007 will be added here when it becomes available.

KERRY: ... the president said last night that America’s commitment is not open-ended. And if they don’t follow through, they will lose the support of the American people and the Iraqi people.

I don’t want to debate with you whether or not they’ve already lost the support of the American people. I think it’s pretty evident to most people that that’s where we are.

But what does it mean to say it’s not open-ended? What is the accountability measure here? Are you saying, if it’s not open-ended, that you’re prepared to terminate it? Do you agree that it’s not open-ended, first of all?

RICE: Of course, it is not open-ended.

KERRY: If it’s not open-ended, does that mean you’re prepared if they fail to pull out, to terminate? What is the accountability mechanism?

RICE: Senator, I think it’s best to leave the president’s words as the president’s words.

I do think that the accountability rests in two places. First of all, I think the Iraqis now know that if they don’t succeeding returning security to their population, then their population is not going to support them. And…

KERRY: And what are we going to do? That’s the big issue to the United States Congress.

RICE: ... it’s a democratic process.

And, secondly, we will have an opportunity as this policy unfolds - it’s not going to happen overnight - as it unfolds to see whether or not, in fact, the Iraqis are living up to the assurances that they gave us.

KERRY: And what if they don’t?

RICE: Senator, I don’t think you go to plan B. You work with plan A.

KERRY: But that’s not a plan B. That’s a very critical issue.

<!-more-> Do take the time to check out the complete exchange between JK and Sec. Rice as well as other excerpts of the hearing.

Here’s video from the SFRC hearing on MSNBC featuring JK and Sec. Rice.

Also of interest

There’s some very interesting follow-up reading in the LA Times article, “Mideast shaking its head”.

Last but not least, there was a very interesting summary of the situation in the comments at The Carpetbagger Report post about the hearing:

Republican Auto Maintenance

Democrat: You better put oil in that engine. Republican: I’m not going to use oil. I’m going to run light and nimble. Democrat: You’re going to wreck your engine. You better add oil. … Democrat: I see you burned up your engine. Republican: I’m going to add oil now. Democrat: You don’t need oil now. It won’t help. Republican: Typical Democrat flip-flopper. You were for oil before you were against it.

Comment by bobcn — 1/11/2007 @ 7:18 pm

What items would you add to the reading list?

 

Hotline (subscription only) picked up on a report about some numbers that appear on the end of cycle FEC reports for political action committee giving.

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

John Kerry’s camp says Kerry, though his leadership PAC, “gave the most money to 2006 candidates and committees than any other PAC in the country. ... more than double the amount of money than the number 2 PAC and far more than any of his potential 08 rivals—Republican or Democrat. ... These numbers do not include what Kerry gave out of his own campaign account to candidates and what he raised for them online. Overall, John Kerry raised or gave away 14 million dollars to nearly 300 candidates this cycle and did more stumping than any national Democrat” (release, 1/11).

Their “comprehensive analysis” of all relevant leadership PACs showed the top 6 PACs, by transfers to other candidates (through 11/27/06), were:

<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=413 style=’width:309.95pt;margin-left:4.65pt;border-collapse:collapse’> <td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’> 

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>Total 

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>To Fed.

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial> To NonFed

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>Leadership PAC

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>Transfers

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>Candidates

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>Candidates

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>Keeping America’s Promise (John Kerry)

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>4,348,932

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>4,011,830

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>337,102

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>Forward Together PAC (Mark Warner)

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>2,087,619

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>882,000

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,204,819

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>Straight Talk America (John McCain) 

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,374,033

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>645,523

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>728,710

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>Every Republican Is Crucial (E. Cantor)

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,342,144

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,337,144

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>5,000

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>AmeriPAC (Steny Hoyer)

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,250,640

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,194,500

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>56,140

<td width=210 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:157.35pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:12.75pt’>

<span style=’font-size:7.5pt; font-family:Arial’>The Freedom Project (John Boehner)

<td width=62 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.65in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,130,348

<td width=69 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:51.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>1,098,348

<td width=72 nowrap height=17 valign=bottom style=’width:.75in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height:12.75pt’>

<font size=1 face=Arial>32,000

 

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Scroll down on the home page and take another look at the Democratic majority in Congress that you and JK helped put there in November!!