The climate bill that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) will officially unveil tomorrow will include tougher near-term emissions targets than its House counterpart, according to a leaked draft now circulating around the Hill. It's likely not the final version, as sources close to the bill's authors say that last minute details are still being worked out.
The bill aims to cut emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, up from a 17 percent cut outlined in the bill that the House passed in June. The bill also notably preserves the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate emission of greenhouse gases from large sources like coal-fired power plants, a provision that environmental activists were pushing for.
There were multiple leaked drafts on Tuesday. The latest—weighing in at 801 pages—is expected to be close to the final draft, and it includes four titles: a cap-and-trade title, an energy research title, a transition and adaptation title, and a title outlining emissions reductions in other areas. Outside of a few changes, the Boxer-Kerry bill largely mirrors the House effort. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide 42 percent by 2030 and aims to reduce emissions 83 percent by mid-century.
The bill leaves the portions on credit allocation and how the money derived from the sale or permits would be spent largely blank, however, portions expected to be among the most contentious. Those portions are expected to be filled in when Boxer releases her chairman's mark sometime in mid-October, following initial hearings on the bill in her committee, Environment and Public Works.
Sen. David Vitter shot himself in the foot this month. The Louisiana senator has been outspoken in his criticism of ACORN, the embattled community organization, for offering financial advice to individuals posing as a pimp and a prostitute. But the Washington watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint Tuesday asking the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel to investigate Vitter's violation of the state's lawyerly conduct rules for his ties to prostitution in Louisiana.
In 2007, it was revealed that Sen. Vitter's telephone number was included in the so-called "D.C. Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey's, list of client telephone numbers. The senator confirmed he had sought Ms. Palfrey's services, saying in a statement, "this was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible." Two other women also alleged Sen. Vitter had engaged the services of prostitutes. Jeanette Maier, the "Canal Street Madam," claimed Sen. Vitter visited the New Orleans brothel several times in the mid-1990s. In addition, a woman who worked as a prostitute under the name of Wendy Cortez said Sen. Vitter was a regular client of hers between July and November 1999.
Under D.C. and Louisiana law, it is a crime to solicit for prostitution. CREW filed a complaint against Sen. Vitter with the Senate Ethics Committee, which dismissed the matter without action in September 2008.
"Sen. Vitter's zeal to see ACORN criminally investigated for offering advice in setting up a prostitution ring reminded me he has yet to be held accountable for his own role in a prostitution ring," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan. "While ACORN's conduct is indefensible, so is Sen. Vitter's and what is good for the goose is good for the gander."
It remains unclear whether CREW's complaint will yield a substantive investigation. But this is clearly bad news for Vitter, who faces a number of tough challengers, including a porn star, for his seat in 2010.
Obama seems to be walking into an either/or trap with Iran: convince China and Russia to back tougher sanctions on Iran that are not likely to persuade the thuggish regime of Tehran to give up its nuclear program or engage in military action that would not put a permament end to Iran's nuclear ambitions but could destabilize the region (especially Iraq). What to do?
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, both former National Security Council staff members, propose a third way in a New York Timesop-ed. They write:
Instead of pushing the falsehood that sanctions will give America leverage in Iranian decision-making — a strategy that will end either in frustration or war — the administration should seek a strategic realignment with Iran as thoroughgoing as that effected by Nixon with China. This would require Washington to take steps, up front, to assure Tehran that rapprochement would serve Iran’s strategic needs.
On that basis, America and Iran would forge a comprehensive framework for security as well as economic cooperation — something that Washington has never allowed the five-plus-one group to propose. Within that framework, the international community would work with Iran to develop its civil nuclear program, including fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil, in a transparent manner rather than demanding that Tehran prove a negative — that it’s not developing weapons. A cooperative approach would not demonize Iran for political relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah, but would elicit Tehran’s commitment to work toward peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts.
Not demonizing Iran? That may be tough, given how easy it is to demonize a government led by repressive brutes who suppress dissent and deny the Holocaust. But the Leveretts effectively sum up the lack of good choices. Essentially, their point is that sometimes you have to work with someone who doesn't deserve the time of day. If sanctions may not succeed (other than to cause hardship on an Iranian public that the Iranian regime obviously doesn't care that much about), and if war is too uncontrollable and messy (and it is), then the United States might have no other alternative but real and comprehensive engagement.
The Leveretts write:
Some may say that this is too high a price to pay for improved relations with Iran. But the price is high only for those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged American interests in the Middle East and made our allies there less secure.
But even if such a course makes sense policy-wise, selling it to the public—while the Iranian government is in the hands of mullahs and tyrants—will be a tough task. The Leveretts don't suggest how Obama do so. That's above the pay grade.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
Chief Warrant Officer 4, Terry Polwort, from Enid, Okla., an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter instructor pilot in Company A, 4th Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Multi-National Division - Baghdad, reads through his checklist during a preflight inspection of an Apache at Camp Taji, Iraq, Sept. 24. (US Army photo via army.mil.)
To the casual observer, it might seem like corn-state representatives got a big win over the Environmental Protection Agency last week, as administrator Lisa Jackson vowed that pending biofuels rules will reflect "uncertainty" around the indirect emissions that come from land-use change related to biofuel production. But upon closer inspection, it sure looks like Jackson played Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and other corn-state Democrats on this issue, offering them a pittance so they'd back off attempts to thwart EPA rulemaking.
The EPA is currently considering working on a updates to the renewable fuel standard. Harkin and other ethanol supporters have sought to block the EPA from considering the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from land use change in their final rule.
Harkin had planned to introduce an amendment to the EPA and Interior appropriations bill that would block the EPA from spending funds to study and include international indirect land use change emissions in their rulemaking on the Renewable Fuels Standards for one year. But last Wednesday, Jackson sent Harkin a letter informing him that their analysis would attempt to account for uncertainty involved in indirect land-use emissions. "This analysis will allow us to quantify the impact of uncertainty on the lifecycle emissions," the letter states. "We will present these estimates in the final rule, and I plan to incorporate those estimates of uncertainty in my regulatory decisions." Yet the letter made it clear that studies thus far "indicate that it is important to take into account indirect emissions from biofuels when looking at the lifecycle emissions."
Apparently, that was enough to fend off Harkin's onslaught. "In light of the EPA letter, and because EPA had said it would delay issuing regulations to establish renewable fuel volume biofuel requirements for 2010, Harkin decided not to press the amendment today," said Harkin spokesperson Grant Gustafson in a statement. "Harkin considers setting those fuel requirements in a timely manner as critically important to our national strategy for reducing our dangerous dependence on imported oil."
But that's not to say that Harkin and other corn-huggers won't pull out a win in the end, when the EPA finalizes its rules. They also scored a win last week when the final EPA rule on reporting greenhouse gas emissions excluded ethanol producers, after listing them in the initial proposed rule.
At the heart of the Oklahoma City bombing case lies a lingering question: How did just two men—Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh—manage to mix up a large bomb overnight at a Kansas lake, drive it into Oklahoma City and set it off at the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995?
For a time, the FBI believed there was a third accessory to the crime, referred to as John Doe No. 2 and depicted in a police composite sketch as a muscular man with dark hair. Investigators initially pursued the possibility that John Doe No. 2 was in the cab of the truck, jumped out before the bomb blew up, and made a clean getaway.
But then the government dropped all references to John Doe No. 2. Early on in the case it maintained that there was no evidence supporting the existence of a third participant, and insisted its extensive investigation proved that the bombing had been carried out by two main players: McVeigh and Nichols.
In the July/August 2007 issue of Mother Jones, I wrote about a strange twist in the investigation: the case of a laborer called Kenney Trentadue. His brother Jesse, a Salt Lake City attorney, has accused federal agents of wrongly suspecting Kenney of being John Doe No. 2. When Kenney did not confess to aiding the bombing, Jesse Trentadue alleges, the agents beat him to death in a prison outside Oklahoma City and tried to cover it up by claiming he had killed himself. Kenney's death was indeed ruled as a suicide, but Jesse said his body bore numerous injuries that could not have been entirely self-inflicted. (The government later awarded the Trentadue family a $1.1 million settlement for its handling of the death.)
Ever since the bombing, Trentadue has been fighting the Bureau and Justice Department in one lawsuit after another to try and figure out what happened to his brother. In the process he has delved deep into the bomb case itself. He has sought to interview Nichols, a move opposed by the FBI and denied by a federal appeals court. He has submitted FOIA requests to obtain CIA files on the bombing, with scant success.
Now his search has at last borne some fruit. As the Associated Press reported Sunday, the government has released a set of surveillance tapes filmed moments before the bomb went off—tapes which have, until now, been withheld from the public. When Trentadue looked at footage from the various cameras around the site, he said the tapes had a blank spot in the minutes before the blast—eliminating imagery of the truck carrying the bomb and people in the vehicle. Trentadue concludes that key parts of the tapes have been edited out—an accusation certain to fuel suspicions that the government may have withheld relevant evidence in the case. You can see the newly disclosed footage here.
With so much ink already spilled in the political war over health care reform, it is the rare piece that can successfully redraw the battle lines in amusing and insightful ways. But two such examples have recently fought through the cacophony of the blogosphere to aid the ailing debate.
The Air Health Care employee responds using some very familiar excuses:
Sir. Please. Calm down and be realistic. I'm sure the system can be frustrating, but consumers don't understand flight plans and landing slots. Even if they did, there are thousands of separate providers involved in moving travelers around, and hundreds of airports, and millions of trips. Getting everyone to coordinate services and exchange information just isn't realistic in a business as complicated as travel.
And this morning, the normally libertarian-leaning Economist posted a similarly spirited critique of the protests against centralizing health care—via a discussion of the merits of Macs vs. Microsoft. Building on a Talking Points Memo discussion, the Democracy in America blog likens the convenient, streamlined, interoperable "iFascism" of the Mac product line to the supposedly "Orwellian" attempts by Obama administration to overhaul health care and provide robust financial product regulation. In contrast, DiA posits, the existing health care system is more like Microsoft—it theoretically offers more choices, but is also "incoherent, hard to understand, often dysfunctional and bloated by obsolete legacy systems." The Economist's unexpected conclusion?
Opposition to quality centralised design doesn't make you freer. It just leaves you confused and helpless, and forces you to spend much of your time figuring out how to accomplish basic tasks, rather than doing the great things you wanted to do with your computer/life.
As I reported this morning, and Marcy Wheeler first noticed, the Obama administration has been unable to find at least ten documents relating to the Bush administration's torture, detention, and extraordinary rendition programs. From my story today:
In 2007, the Bush administration was fighting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was seeking records related to the deaths of detainees, their treatment, and the administration's rendition policies. CIA lawyers drew up a list [PDF] of 181 documents that they considered exempt from release. Some of these records, which were stored in a secure facility, were so sensitive that Justice Department lawyers lacked the clearances to handle them.
After President Obama took office, he issued a new FOIA policy, instructing executive branch agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor" of releasing information. The Obama Justice Department reprocessed the ACLU's earlier request under the new guidelines. But when they did so, department officials discovered that 10 documents listed on the index compiled by the Bush administration were nowhere to be found. The Justice Department noted this in a filing [PDF] by David Barron, an acting assistant attorney general, which was submitted last week as part of the ongoing ACLU case and first highlighted by Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler. Barron acknowledged in the filing that even more documents could be missing, because "many" of the documents the Obama team did find were "not certain matches" to the ones on the Bush administration's list.
In her initial blog post on the subject, Marcy brought up the case of the sixth document on
both the Obama and Bush administration lists:
The 2007 Index refers to the document as a 46-page document, dated July 25, 2002, providing legal advice. Yesterday's Index refers to the document as a 59-page document, from and to the DOD, dated July 25, 2002, providing legal advice.
The page discrepancy, by itself is interesting (that is, if they don't have the document, then how do they know that the original index listed the page numbers wrong?).
And then there's the fact that this document is missing. Some of these documents discussed SERE techniques as torture. In the SASC report, both Jim Haynes and John Rizzo were very squirmy about discussing how DOD advice to to OLC for CIA's torture memos; if we had the document itself, we might be able to explain that definitively. And then there's the possibility that someone took notes on this document.
While I was reporting this story, I got an answer about the discrepancy between the two administrations' description of the same document. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told me that the Obama administration made a filing error. They found a document with the same date as "Document 6" and, although it had 59 pages instead of 46, added its information to their list. Once they realized it wasn't a match, they forgot to remove that information from the index. So, to be clear: a 59-page Department of Defense top-secret memo from July 25, 2002 does exist, and the DOJ has sent it to the Pentagon for processing. It will appear on a future index if the administration decides to withhold it. What the Obama DOJ didn't find was the 46-page memo "providing legal advice" that's described on the Bush administration's list. That's still missing.
Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann are supposed to be the oil and vinegar of the Republican Party. He's an anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, radically pro-civil rights libertarian. She's a Bible-thumping Bush acolyte who dreams of nuking Iran and likens gay sex to bestiality. But there they were on Friday, sharing the stage at a town hall organized by Paul backers, where Bachmann called him "one of the leading advocates for freedom in our capitol." What gives?
Bachmann's role is telling in what it says about how she and other Bush-era Republicans are trying to reposition themselves. As recently as last year's GOP presidential primary, Paul was ridiculed by the GOP mainstream for his opposition to America's costly military adventures abroad; the leading conservative website, Redstate.com, even banned his supporters from shilling for him in blog comments. Paul's votes against war funding were part of his general practice of opposing almost every government spending bill, a habit that earned him the nickname "Dr. No."
Now, of course, the once-lonely Dr. No finds himself surrounded by a Party of No. And the new GOP refuseniks want his blessing so they can obscure how their past fiscal recklessness tanked the economy and mobilize Paul's considerable grassroots machine against Obama.
That job requires some contortions. "Next year the government is going to spend more money on welfare in one year than they spent on the entire eight years of the war," Bachmann told the crowd, essentially arguing the GOP has been the party of fiscal restraint, even though Bush racked up record deficits. And now that Obama is trying to correct those excesses, she feels taxpayers' pain: "Sales tax, gas tax, every-time-you-turn-around tax," she complained. "In other words, at the rate your government has been spending, the fruits of your labor have already been spoken for."
Bachman, who has been tutored by Paul as of late during his Thursday "Liberty Luncheons," was so enamored of her new anti-tax identity that she couldn't contain herself. The "government takeover of healthcare" will literally tax away everything Americans make, she suggested, transforming the country into a communist economy: "In other words, 100 percent of your check has already been spoken for. You can't have everything that you make confiscated by the government. It doesn't work."
This and Bachman's other genuflections the the gods of the free market and small government were met with huge cheers, suggesting that Paulites are willing to forget how she and the rest of the GOP spent eight years undermining both of those things. It was almost as if the crowd was thankful to her wing of the party for royally screwing up, thereby confirming the libertarian notion that government is never the answer. Kick the dog enough, and it will lick your hand every time you whistle.