This is a follow-up, of sorts, on a piece I posted yesterday concerning the beefed-up oversight role of Congress. Today's wrinkle involves Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who is making noises that seem to indicate she does not intend to heed the subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Committee wants to ask Rice what she knows about the administration's erroneous claims on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Her response? Been there, done that:

"I addressed these questions almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing. This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."

But in fact, at her confirmation hearing, Rice used another justification as to why she could not disclose what she knew and when she knew it: Executive privilege. At the time that the president's claims on the now infamous yellow-cake uranium, which Mr. Hussein was said to have sought from Niger, were made, Rice served as National Security Adviser. Thus, she argued, because she was serving in a position that did not require Congressional confirmation, she was not required to answer the Senate's questions.

Well, the House committee, for one, isn't buying it. We'll see how it shakes out. But back to the standard I used yesterday. How would you define the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's request? Principled or personal?
Multiple Investigations

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Missing the Benchmarks
· Pat Tillman's Brother Addresses Congress

There was an article posted on CQ.com Thursday that I think was meant to mock Republicans, but might be thought of as suggesting a great way forward for both the House and the Senate:

Much of the rest of America might have been sneaking peeks on a workaday afternoon at the new 759-page Harry Potter best seller, but House Ways and Means Committee Republicans settled into their own long read after lunch on Thursday when they forced a delay of the markup of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act by exercising their right to have the 481-page bill read out loud

One of the biggest complaints I have about Congress is that most of the time they have no idea what they are voting on. Senators and Representatives don't write these bills -- their aides do. Most of the time, when questioned, individual Congressional members admit that they haven't read the bills being voted on. Add to that non-transparent earmarks and pork spending, and it's easy to see why the legislative process, more often than not, is a disaster either in process or waiting to happen.

This move by the Republicans was obviously a political tactic designed to buy more time to review the bill. But it's actually not a bad idea to do it all the time. If this type of public reading was mandatory for every bill that gets voted on, along with their amendments and all clearly defined final earmark attachments, perhaps it would limit the thousand page spending behemoths that get passed literally minutes after being introduced on the floor. Pardon my libertarianism, but less bills passed means less government in our lives.

When more bloggers regularly read bills than do the elected representatives that actually vote on them, we've got a serious problem.

Yesterday GOP non-candidate-so-far Fred Thompson stopped by congress and met with 53 members of the GOP House delegation to talk, just talk. What did they talk about?

Thompson said, "I don't really have anything to say other than the fact that I wanted to come over and see some of my old friends and make some new friends and tell them what was on my mind and listen and see what was on their minds."

The 64-year-old lawyer-turned-actor-turned-politician-turned-actor again added, "We had a good talk, enjoyed it and we will be seeing some more of each other I am sure."

Well, that's a more caginess than is necessary at this stage. We all know that this was about gauging support for a presidential run, and it's OK to say that. According to this report, that item did make it to the top of the agenda with many urging Fred to run.
%Gallery-2654%

Well, I guess it's good that the House can get something done. The Associated Press reported last night that the House voted itself a pay raise:

Despite record-low approval ratings, House lawmakers Wednesday voted to accept an approximately $4,400 pay raise that will increase their salaries to almost $170,000.

This is a bipartisan fiasco, but the vote to reject the pay raise did garner 181 votes. At least that number of legislators thought that is was a bit unseemly to give themselves a raise, with disappointment in Congress at all-time highs.

Apparently, the immigration deal that the Senate is currently working on raises taxes and will be passed first in that chamber. This is a problem. Constitutionally, only the House can originate revenue related bills. Several conservative congressmen have seized on an avenue of attack called a blue slip, which could force a vote in the House:

"If we get an opportunity to do it, believe me, we'll do it," the aide said. "I think it's going to be a matter of who will get there first. A number of people in the House are dying to be fingered as the person who killed [the Senate bill]."

As the bill's Senate supporters spend the recess fighting a wildfire of grassroots resistance to the immigration deal, which held together after an intense first week, some House Republicans are unconvinced by outreach from their Senate brethren. They acknowledge that a blue slip may be their only recourse to stop a process they believe Democrats will dominate in conference.

Any House member can move to blue-slip a Senate-originated bill that raises revenue, though the protest requires a majority vote to send the legislation back across the Capitol and force immigration negotiators back to square one.

Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the Iran Counter Proliferation Act convincingly, by a vote of 37-1. It's remarkable that a bill received that kind of bipartisan support in today's political climate, and shows how seriously members of Congress (and the House in particular) view the threat of Iran. I view the chances of any sanctions program working to stop Iran less than zero, but steps like this must be undertaken before we move towards tougher steps. According to Brian Faughnan over at The Weekly Standard, the bill:

...repeals the administration's authority to waive penalties under the Iran Sanctions Act, blocks the import of all Iranian products, provides for the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and increases funds for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Sounds like sensible and long overdue steps to take. But the White House opposes it! I usually support the fact that foreign policy is the sole territory of the Executive Branch under any president, but this has the fingerprints of the broken down State Department all over it. Here's their reasoning:

...it's opposed by the Bush administration, which argues that it would undercut multilateral efforts--particularly the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Hmmm. When, exactly, was the last time that the United Nations Security Council, and the UN in general, was successful in anything it undertook, especially a sanctions program? The State Department and the Bush Administration should stop worrying about the United Nations and start worrying about Iran. I hate supporting the House in this, but go Tom Lantos!

The Associated Press, in an article comically written to put the best face forward for the Democrats, is reporting that the Senate just defeated a bill introduced by Senator Russ Feingold supporting limited war funding to the end of March 2008, thus requiring a pullout from Iraq at that time. The legislation was nearly identical to the Iraq Surrender bill passed by the House last week.

After the Senate does finally pass an emergency spending bill for the troops, the ensuing conference committee between the House and the Senate negotiating a final bill should be a real hoot. The Democrats seem to be enjoying taking their time funding the troops - it's not like there's a war going on...

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.

Interesting. According to The Politico, 70 House liberals (read Democrats) have sent a letter to President Bush telling him that they are going to do everything in their power to block funding of the Iraq war:

Seventy House members, nearly all liberal Democrats, vowed today that they would not support any more funding for Iraq military operations unless tied to a complete withdrawal of combat troops.

I wonder why they didn't send a letter to Nancy Pelosi? This is exactly what the Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, did at the end of the Vietnam War. And, contrary to John Kerry's ridiculous protestations on C-SPAN two days ago, that led directly to well over 2,000,000 execution style-deaths in the immediate region, re-education camps (which Kerry approved of) with at least an additional 100,000 dead, and about up to 3,000,000 boat people with a few hundred thousand more deaths.

Oh, and voters haven't trusted Democrats on national security since. Good plan, libs.

221 votes to 205, the House yesterday passed a bill to fund the Iraq war:

The move, approved by 221 votes to 205, would release $US43 billion ($52bn) in emergency war funding but force Mr Bush to show progress in Iraq in July, before politicians vote on freeing up a second $US53bn chunk of funds.

It's anyones guess at this point if the Senate could pass this bill or if Majority Leader Harry Reid even wants to. First he would need to attract the support of 10 Republican senators -- nine to get to 60 votes, plus one more to make up for Joe Lieberman. Reid should be able to get five easily, and maybe even up to seven or eight, but ten is probably impossible. Which means that this plan is likely a dead-ender and won't even make it to the president's desk.

On the other hand there's going to be a lot of reporting on this part of the story:

Details emerged meanwhile of a White House visit by 11 concerned Republican House members on Tuesday, days after senior Republicans said a "Plan B" might be needed in Iraq absent clear success for the surge by September.

"I've been to a lot of meetings with the President about the war. This was one of the toughest, frankest, no-holds-barred meetings,'' said Republican politician Ray LaHood who was at Tuesday's meeting.

The House just voted on the anti-surge resolution. Final vote for passage: 246-182. Many newspapers were promoting the idea that a huge swath of Republicans would vote with the Democrats. Contrary to that speculation, only 17 Republicans voted with Pelosi and Murtha. That's only 8 percent (rounded off). Hardly a "huge swath."

Those Republicans were Mike Castle (Del.), Howard Coble (N.C.), Tom Davis (Va.), John Duncan (Tenn.), Phil English (Pa.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Bob Ingles (S.C.), Tim Johnson (Ill.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Ric Keller (Fla.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Steve LaTourette (Ohio), Ron Paul (Texas), Tom Petri (Wisc.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.), Fred Upton (Mich.), and James Walsh (N.Y.). The Democrats voting against Pelosi/Murtha were Jim Marshall (Ga.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.).

The text of the resolution was as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That --

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Notice how the first part of the resolution says that Congress still supports and vows to protect the military. I've noticed that those who really do support the military don't need to scream it out loud every time they speak.

Bob Novak, a paleo-conservative if I ever saw one, is predicting that the Democrats will pick up 20 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate in the latest Evans-Novak Report. He predicates this with the usual "if the election was held today" disclaimer, but then states that all that's left for the Republicans to do this election cycle is to minimize their losses:

With hopes of the late comeback faded, the Republican strategy has changed from that of a quarterback on a fourth-quarter come-from-behind mission to that of an overwhelmed emergency medical technician performing triage on several dying patients. The only thought now is to minimize losses by plugging whatever holes can be plugged. Late decisions have to be made about who lives and who dies.

He also claims that the Foley scandal really hasn't helped Democrats that much, and that Santorum and Burns are toast. Interesting reading.

Reuter's International news service reports that "Democrats lead Republicans in 12 of 15 key races in the November 7 election to decide which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives."

President George W. Bush's Republicans currently hold a 15-seat advantage over Democrats. So Dems will need all of them. Here is a summary of the results in each race polled:

ARIZONA 8 - Democratic Gabrielle Giffords holds a 53 percent to 41 percent lead over Republican Randy Graf.

COLORADO 7 - Democrat Ed Perlmutter over Republican Rick O'Donnell 54 percent to 40 percent.

CONNECTICUT 2 - Republican Rep. Rob Simmons over Democratic Joe Courtney 47 percent to 42.

CONNECTICUT 4 - Democrat Dianne Farrell over Republican Rep. Christopher Shays: Farrell 51 percent to 44 percent.

ILLINOIS 6 - Democrat Tammy Duckworth ahead of Republican Peter Roskam: 54 percent to 40 percent.

That's it for the prognosticators and pundits. Let them turn their predictions to the Senate, because it's official: The Democrats control the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi is the first woman to be Speaker. Third in line for the presidency. It's a very different country starting right now.

The marching footsteps of democracy have left the election booths. They have voted back the House from the corrupt and authoritarian forces of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and Karl Rove. Later tonight the Senate will be neutralized or won by these same forces and the right wing dictates of Dick Cheney will be checked.

As the night slips in to his tory it is not the end: At midnight we will begin to take back the White House, end the imperial war, return economic balance to the middle and working classes. We will put together a progressive coalition that will insure the health and well being of the average American and corral the runaway profit and war mongering of the corporate state.

Democracy speaks slowly and carries a huge broom that can sweep away filth.

Oh well. When you can't govern, then investigate. In a story at The Politico that would be humorous if it were not so pathetic, Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is requesting that all e-mails to and from the White House and the Republican National Committee be turned over to him. Let's see, the Bush administration is Republican (marginally) and so is the RNC. Seems to me like there would be quite a bit of communications between the two, and that those communications would be by their nature "partisan." Seems to me that that isn't against the law. Imagine the media outrage if Orrin Hatch requested the same from the Clinton White House and the DNC...

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has asked the Republican National Committee to provide his committee with copies of all the e-mails sent by administration officials "for partisan political purposes."

Waxman, who is traveling in the Middle East this week with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), sent a letter to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan on Wednesday requesting his political committee to provide the government reform panel with e-mails that are still stored on RNC servers.

This purportedly is a response to a possible violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from participating in certain partisan activities while on government time.