Faced with the horror of genocide, we struggle to learn its lessons - to discover how to make the unfulfilled promise of "never again" a reality. In Darfur, even as we strive to bring an end to the human tragedy, we must also look to the future, renewing our commitment to prevent more such atrocities. We now know that making this commitment requires making another -- committing to prevent dangerous climate change, and committing to help the most vulnerable people and societies to cope with its effects.

The roots of the conflict in Darfur are complex, but climate change clearly played a role in triggering and exacerbating the violence. A new study by the UN Environmental Programme found that failing rains, drought and desertification increased pressure on already scarce resources, helping to push this fragile society past its breaking point. The same study warned that:

"Sudan is unlikely to see a lasting peace unless widespread and rapidly accelerating environmental degradation is urgently addressed." (UNEP)

The desert in northern Sudan has spread by 60 miles over the past 40 years and rainfall has dropped by nearly a third. Unchecked climate change will result in additional temperature rises of between 0.5C and 1.5C by mid-century, which speeding up desertification, intensifying drought, and leading to a fall in crop yields of 70%.

Unless we take immediate, effective action to curb climate change, the environmental degradation will jeopardize hopes for peace in Darfur, and threaten to spark conflict across the region.

"Darfur is just an early warning," Muawia Shaddad of the Sudan Environment Conservation Society told the Washington Post . If this tragedy is a warning, let it be heeded, and let us act now, in the spirit of our promise.

-Becca

As I wrote last week , ‘America’s Mayor’ has had a string of bad breaks as he tries to fear monger his way to the GOP nomination for president. 

The icing on the cake – or so I thought – was that Thomas Ravenel, South Carolina state chairman of Giuliani’s campaign, had to resign last week due to the fact that he was indicted on drug charges.

Needing a new member of his South Carolina team, Rudy decided to keep things in the family by tapping Ravenel’s father, Arthur Ravenel, Jr. to join his campaign.  On the face of it this seemed like a smart move.  Ravenel, a former member of the South Carolina legislature, was also a member of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress from 1987-1995 and obviously has deep political roots in a key, early primary state.

However, Arthur is a man who has a “colorful past”, shall we say:  According to CNN , it seems Arthur is:

A supporter of flying the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds, Ravenel referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as the “National Association for Retarded People” at a flag rally in 2000, according to the Charleston Post and Courier.

Arthur Ravenel later said he inadvertently mixed up his words and apologized to mentally handicapped people for comparing them to members of the NAACP, according to the newspaper.

As John McEnroe , former tennis star, would say: "You cannot be serious!"

If the Ravenel Klan clan is the type of supporters ‘America’s Mayor’ is surrounding himself with, I can only imagine – if elected president – the kind of people who will serve in his administration. 

Howard Salter

The Washington Post Editorial Board today urged President Bush to close the U.S. prison at Gitmo and seek another way to hold suspected terrorists. The overall message is a welcome one as the Post recognizes that the prison camp at Gitmo has been a public image disaster for the U.S. However, I am not 100 percent convinced that the second suggestion from the editorial, that the president should seek to create an administrative system to hold suspects, is as wise.

The Washington Post is correct when it suggests that the methodology for trying suspects in Israel and the U.K. is a step above current U.S. practice and would be an improvement if enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately the lack of confidence in the overall U.S. governmental approach to terror cases makes adoption of an administrative system look like a risky proposition.

In recent years too many high ranking Bush administration figures have made questionable choices regarding the detention of suspected terrorists. Additionally there is still evidence that the administration is allowing the use of illegal tactics in the interrogation arena. These two issues make it hard to defend an administrative system to try suspected terrorists.

I will concede that if the next U.S. administration agrees to be more judicious in its approach to the arrest of suspected terrorists and is willing to end the use of torture and other illegal interrogation approaches, Congress should look at innovative approaches to trying terrorists that could be based systems like the one used until recently in the U.K.

Raj Purohit

 

President Bush was handed a letter yesterday signed by 50 high school seniors from the Presidential Scholars program. The letter urged a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the U.S....well done....very well done.

Or should I say, George Orwell?

After being reminded of this interesting historical tidbit, I went back and took a peek at my heavily-worn, dog-eared copy of Homage, Orwell's reportage of the Spanish Civil War told from his warrior's perspective, to see what would strike me this time around. And here's the quote that nearly jumped off the page and smacked me:

Every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are simply not compatible with military efficiency.

What made this all the more relevant was a recent Defense News article by Lawrence Korb entitled, "Lost Professionalism: The Firing of Pace Tramples Civil-Military Relations." In his piece, Korb, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information , argues:

The decision by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates not to renominate Gen. Peter Pace to a second two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) because of the possibility of a difficult confirmation hearing may have some short-term benefits for the Bush administration by sparing it another re-examination of its failed policies in Iraq. But the long-term damage to civil-military relations and military professionalism will be substantial.

Apparently "difficult confirmation hearings" can be added to "individual liberty" and "truthful press" as things that are incompatible with military efficiency (or political expediency). But here's the money quote:

If Secretary Gates had said that he wanted his own person as chairman, rather than the one he inherited from Rumsfeld, that would have been perfectly appropriate. Indeed, that is one of the reasons that the chairman and vice chairman of the JCS, unlike the service chiefs, are appointed for two years instead of four. But Gates said he intended to give Pace the customary two-year reappointment but changed his mind when it became clear that the Marine general would face a contentious reconfirmation hearing.

And why would the hearings become contentious? Not because of anything Pace said or did but because of the misrepresentations of the president and his appointees. Moreover, Pace was confirmed unanimously as chairman in September 2005, after four years as vice chairman, some 36 months after the invasion of Iraq. By then it was already clear that the administration had cherry-picked the intelligence and had underestimated how long and difficult the war would be.

Gates claims that he is throwing Pace overboard for the good of the country. Nonsense. Pace is being sacrificed to spare the administration further embarrassment.

When professional military men like Pace are being scarified to eschew political embarrassment rather than for disastrous decision-making, I think it's safe to say our already debilitating Iraq War is progressively degrading. Unfortunately, it looks like U.S. civil-military relations and our democracy might be as well. Happy birthday, George Orwell!

--Rich Stazinski

Senator Barack Obama, who along with Senator Clinton and former Senator John Edwards , make up the troika of Democratic frontrunners, began running TV ads in Iowa last night.

Obama’s campaign raked in about $25 million in the first quarter of 2007 and according to several insiders is well positioned to bring in at least that much in the second quarter campaign reporting, which is due at the end of June. Therefore, he certainly has plenty of dough to begin running TV ads as a way to broadly introduce himself to people in “The Hawkeye State”, along with other early contest states such as New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

While one of Obama’s ads is a one-minute biograph , the second one – about 30 seconds long – illustrates his ability to work across party lines. In fact, one of the featured people in the shorter ad is Jim Durkin, a Republican, who served in the Illinois State Legislature with Obama…oh, by the way, Durkin also is GOP hopeful Senator John McCain’s “national legislative co-chair.”

Did the Obama campaign know this? You bet. Do they know that McCain is falling in the polls faster that a speeding bullet? Y-U-P. Do they think that the McCain supporters of 2000, mostly moderate Republicans and Independents, will begin giving Obama a second look as their choice for president? That’s their strategy.

Now, will it work? Only time, and lots of money – sad to say – will tell.

Howard Salter

 

While everyone in the GOP is holding their breath for the official announcement of "Mr. Right", former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney , is quietly and carefully building a political base in two key early states: Iowa and New Hampshire.

As political reporter Dan Balz writes in today’s Washington Post , Romney spent early and often to get numerous TV ads up and running to introduce himself to the GOP electorate. Romney has also spent a lot of time and money to recruit on-the-ground supporters in Iowa; something Fred Thompson is going to need to do, but will he?

As Balz notes:

In New Hampshire, Romney leads both McCain, who won there in 2000, and Giuliani, who leads virtually all the national polls. In Iowa, his campaign's organizational depth recently drove Giuliani and McCain to drop out of an August GOP presidential straw poll -- seen as a trial run for next year's first-in-the-nation caucuses -- rather than risk a costly and embarrassing defeat at the hands of their lesser-known rival….

But as former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee prepares to announce his candidacy, which will further scramble a fluid GOP race, Romney has turned himself into a significant force no longer discounted by any of his rivals.

Now, it is a race until the end of this week. The second quarter of the year ends and campaigns are going to be announcing how much cash they raised. In the last quarter, McCain’s take was far short of expectations, while Senator Obama astonished veteran observers with his haul; watch for Obama’s cash flow to exceed expectations again as his campaign is being very quiet and careful to say just about nothing in regards to how much they expect to raise this quarter.

Howard Salter

 

The WP blog carries an important piece from Gellman and Becker titled “Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power.” It highlights how the VP has been at the center of the Administrations interrogation policy development since January 11^th 2002, the day CIA officials raised the challenges facing Guantanamo interrogators. The bloggers go on to note that:

“Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning.”

The whole piece is worth reading and it underscores the need for an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Interrogation/Torture .

I am writing from the newly painted intern office to say that we are at it again. For the past week we have been bugging Congressional staffers incessantly during appropriations week (of all times!) to get them to sponsor H.Res.213, which supports the creation of the U.N. Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS).

Luckily, the argument for UNEPS is not a hard one to make, and trying to convince staffers of the high-quality of this legislation is not our primary goal. There are lots of “good” bills that are presented to Congress, with excellent intentions, and that have even better potential results, if passed.  

One thing I have learned from my time here is that it is not necessarily the quality of or need for certain legislation that makes it pass. It must be on the radar of Hill staffers and Representatives. They must know what the legislation is and why they should vote for it. It is up to the public and organizations like Citizens for Global Solutions to educate their representatives. 

Citizens for Global Solutions has been putting up an amazing effort to do this very thing, more than doubling the number of H.Res.213 co-sponsors in less than a week. And it all comes down to 3 or 4 voicemails to each staffer, a few constituent letters, a short conversation, and then a follow-up. The letter we sent them from 37 other organizations supporting the bill hasn’t hurt either. 

Support for UNEPS is growing.  More and more constituents, organizations, and representatives have come to realize the ever-increasing need for cost-efficient, responsive, and professional peacekeeping. This bill has been around in one form or another for over 50 years, but it just shows that the enough calls at the right time can start the process of change.

Megan Sallomi

Many years ago, John Lennon wrote and recorded a wonderful song, "Nobody Told Me." Among the lyrics include this stanza: Nobody told me there'd be days like these; Nobody told me there'd be days like these; Strange days indeed...

I would not be at all surprised if those lyrics are bouncing around the brain and shiny dome of "America's Mayor" today; needles to say, the GOP presidential hopeful has had a very difficult week.

In fact, he's been hit by so many blows (no pun intended; see item four below), even this political junkie can't quite remember which of the following volley came first.

1. The candidate gets exposed for failing to appear for any Iraq Study Group meetings. He then tries to spin his way out of his absences by saying he never should have agreed to join the ISG.
   
2. His successor as The Big Apple's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg , divorces himself from the Republican Party – prior to that marriage he was a Democrat – and declares himself an Independent. This maneuver is causing fellow junkies to wonder if the self-describe, "short, Jewish, billionaire from New York" will run for the White House as a third-party candidate in 2008.
3. America's Mayor falls to second place in national polling to former Senator Fred Thompson.
4. And if those three were not enough to give Rudy an Excedrin headache, his South Carolina presidential campaign state chairman gets indicted on drug charges .

Need I say more than Lennon wrote: "Strange days indeed."

Meanwhile, talk about "strange" and pop music, Senator Chris Dodd , who lags in low-single digits in any poll you can find – be it national or in key early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina – has announced that legendary singer/songwriter Paul Simon will campaign with him in Iowa early in July.

I love Paul Simon's music. I fondly remember seeing him and his former partner in song, Art Garfunkel, perform during a reunion tour in the early 1980's. But Iowa is all about reaching out and touching peoples' hearts, minds and hands, Mr. Dodd. Who on your staff came up with this idea?

If one of the candidates wants to find an important endorsement from someone with real Iowa street cred -- especially right now -- reach out to Zach Johnson . Who is Zach Johnson, you ask? He won the Master's golf tournament in April, he went to Drake University and he grew up in Iowa City.

Howard Salter

A reader at The Washington Note pointed out that yesterday was World Refugee Day. To mark the occasion, the UN High Commission on Refugees released a report that counts over 10 million asylum-seekers this year.

That's a 14% increase over last year, thanks mostly to the estimated 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria. This is one "surge" that deserves serious attention.

For more on this, see Mark Goldberg over at UN Dispatch or Steve's earlier posts here, here, and here.

As you may have gathered from some of my previous writings, I am a native of Detroit, Michigan. Though my wife and son and I live in a Washington, D.C. suburb of Maryland, I am a Motown guy through and through. From my choice in music – Seger over Springsteen and the Four Tops over any other type of R&B -- to my passion for the various Detroit sports teams – I may be an inside-the-beltway observer, but you can’t take the Motor City street cred away from me (even my four-year old son loves the Tigers and Red Wings; wonder how that happened?)

Michiganders have a proud history of senior statesmen. From Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg , who famously said, “Politics stops at the water’s edge” to Democratic Senator Phil Hart, who became known as the “conscience of the Senate” for his principled leadership and grace in his 17 years of public service to one of The Wolverine state’s current Senators, Carl Levin .

In today’s Washington Post, Levin has an op-ed, “Lincoln’s Example for Iraq.” Before I get to his interesting commentary, you’ll have to excuse me for a moment.

Senator Levin has served in the Senate since winning election in 1978. Everyone in Detroit has about a “one degree of separation” with the Senator or his older brother, Sandy, who serves in the House of Representatives. Carl graduated from Central High School, three years prior to my mother.

In 1992, as a spokesman for the Clinton-Gore campaign in Michigan, I staffed Senator Levin at the third and final presidential debate between then-Governor Clinton and President Bush (41). As I introduced myself to him, I asked the Senator if he would like to review the talking points for his various live TV interviews prior to and after the debate.

I’ll never forget what he said, and how sincerely he said the following:

“Howard, I don’t need talking points. Let’s you and I walk and tell me a little bit about yourself. All you really need to do is tell me where I need to go and when I need to be there and everything will be fine.”

He honestly was more interested in knowing about me as a person than he was concerned about what he might say on a live network news feed.

Flash forward to today, nearly 15 years later. Senator Levin has proven to be as honorable, principled and distinguished as his predecessors Vandenberg and Hart. The Detroit News, as conservative as any editorial page in the country, has written:

"He has been above reproach personally and has stuck to his principles, even when they were unpopular. Principled leadership, no matter what political ideology it comes from, is sorely needed in Washington."

In his Post op-ed today, Levin writes about how history is being repeated in Congress in regards to various votes on the war in Iraq:

In his only term in Congress, Abraham Lincoln was an ardent opponent of the Mexican War. He introduced a series of resolutions that challenged President James Polk to show the "spot" of American soil on which Mexicans had spilled American blood, and he voted for an amendment stating that the war was "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President."
But when the question of funding for the troops fighting that war came, Lincoln voted their supplies without hesitation.

Levin clearly states his steady, historical stance against the war:

I voted against going to war in Iraq; I have consistently challenged the administration's conduct of the war; and I have long fought to change our policy there. But I cannot vote to stop funding the troops while they are in harm's way, conducting dangerous missions such as those recently begun north of Baghdad. I agree with Lincoln, who decided "that the Administration had done wrong in getting us into the war, but that the Officers and soldiers who went to the field must be supplied and sustained at all events." As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.

Without getting into who voted for the war when and why can someone vote against a war at first and then vote to continue to fund the war, Levin has pulled off an interesting political maneuver in his op-ed. He has taken an American historical icon, President Lincoln – a Republican – and illustrated that more than 150 years ago, a Congressman used a similar strategy that many current Members of Congress are pursuing today.

What do you think?

Howard Salter

Detached from reality….surely that is the only explanation for the conduct of the member of Congress and/or their staffer when they added language to the House Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would limit economic aid to some countries supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC) .

Yes you did read that correctly. At a time when the U.S. image in the world is seemingly at an all time low ; at a time when we have profound foreign policy/national security challenges to face from Iraq to Climate Change to Darfur , a member of Congress decided to win political points with a few dead-enders who think we can still afford to bash globally embraced international institutions like the ICC. Forgive me for saying that the responsible (or should I say irresponsible) individual seems to be living in a time warp! We are not living in the 1990’s when it was "the economy stupid" and the ICC existed only on paper.

I could spend the entire morning writing about why the United States has nothing to fear from the ICC ; that the ICC in fact embodies core U.S. legal values and traditions ; that it is supported by all of our close democratic allies and has, by its actions, shown that it is oriented towards the prosecution of war criminals from the DRC to Darfur. It would also be easy to spend several hours systematically illustrating the massive foreign policy and national security costs associated with the fatally flawed BIA policy pursued by our government in recent years.

But I’m not going to take either approach. The information required to make a national security and foreign policy case for constructive engagement with the ICC and a reversal of the BIA policy exists (here are a couple of links) and has been, and continues to be, widely disseminated on Capitol Hill. The problem here is not a lack of information, it is a lack of awareness, a disregard for the consequences of ones actions, and it is, frankly, a reckless approach to foreign policy that is harmful both to the United States and the international community. Let us hope that the U.S. Senate can save the House of Representatives from itself…..again.

General/President Musharraf has, at least since 9/11, been viewed as an American stooge by Pakistanis of all political persuasions and at today’s rally in support of Pakistan’s suspended chief justice the demonstrators visually represented this sentiment.

They did so by burning an American flag at the rally.

While such an act increases the odds of the demonstration being covered on CNN and provokes a negative reaction in the U.S., it is unfortunately not an unusual or surprising occurrence. What was unusual and surprising about this particular flag burning was the identity of the demonstrators and the message they were seeking to convey.

The 5,000 strong rally was made up of lawyers (Pakistan’s legal system is an English influenced common law tradition), human rights activists (who tend to be western trained with a profound belief in international human rights law) and the opposition (they are focused on securing democratic elections and adherence to the rule of law). A group of lawyers burned the U.S. flag to protest what they believe is U.S. support for a military dictator at the expense of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Think about that for a minute….it should give each of us pause and reason to reflect on the U.S. image in the world.

Frankly, it is past time that those who influence U.S. foreign policy take a hard look at our approach to Pakistan and recognize that we have ended up on the wrong side of the political conflict in that country. The U.S. must demand that the Musharraf regime stop undermining the courts, press and civil society. It must also seek a timetable for free and fair elections that are open to all parties and their leaders. When the U.S. is, with justification, perceived to be supportive of a military dictator by the bastions of liberal society - lawyers, human rights activists, democracy promoters, the press and judges - something has gone horribly wrong with our foreign policy. It is time for a change.

“America’s Mayor” left office in the Big Apple to a fellow Republican, Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg used to be a Democrat, turned to the GOP, used the media consulting wizardry of Bill Knapp – who ran all the ads for Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election – and is a pro-business, anti-war guy with lots of personal wealth. (He of the Bloomberg LP, with an estimated worth of anywhere from $5-13 billion).

On Tuesday, Bloomberg made a quick, but not surprising announcement that he is leaving the Republican Party to become an independent. This move, along with his political stature as mayor of the nation’s largest city A-N-D his deep pockets has many people thinking that he might be positioning himself for a third-party run for the White House.

Craig Crawford, contributing editor to Congressional Quarterly , and a political analyst for NBC and MSNBC, (love Craig when he is on MSNBC with Keith Olberman) believes that a Bloomberg run for the White House, hurts the eventual Republican nominee:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s exit from the Republican Party, heralding the possibility of a presidential run, hurts the GOP more than the Democrats. For starters, it is the Republican Party that he’s leaving – and trashing while doing so.

Even though he was once a Democrat and despite his liberal social views, Bloomberg more naturally appeals to those Republicans who are iffy on social matters but who tend to admire a wealthy businessmen who runs government like a CEO (which he also once was).

As Baltimore Sun reporter Paul West writes, Bloomberg has a stock answer whenever anyone asks him about a possible bid for the presidency:

Bloomberg, 65, who cannot run again for mayor because of term limits, has yet to announce a presidential candidacy. Indeed, while he has stoked speculation, he has seemingly sought to deflate it by denying he has plans to run. "A short, Jewish billionaire from New York? C'mon," he has said when asked about his potential 2008 candidacy.

In the 1970s there was a cheesy love song by Meatloaf, “Two out of Three ain’t Bad.” According to Bloomberg’s triple play, in my own selfish world, two out of three is bad; I seem to be missing the billionaire, heck, even millionaire component. (being from New York doesn't seem so bad, from this Motown guy's view; unless you are a Yankee fan).

Howard Salter

 

When I wasn’t outside playing baseball or some other sport in the spring and summer of 1973, I was glued to the TV set. Just shy of 13, I was enthralled by the historical and political theatre of the Senate hearings on Watergate. (I know; serious early warning signs of a political junkie).

It wasn’t until a few years later that I began to understand that the Watergate story evolved from the tenacious reporting of two young Washington Post reporters: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. One of my early mentors, Janet Mendler, was my high school journalism teacher. She took our class to a movie in 1976, “All the President’s Men.” The movie, combined with my concurrent reading of the book, allowed me to dream of one day becoming a newspaper reporter, ala “Woodstein.”

In today’s Washington Post, David Segal profiles Bernstein. The story’s hook is Bernstein’s new book, “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” However, Segal only takes a glance at Bernstein’s new book, and delves into the ups and downs of the famed journalist.

Like it or not, Bernstein is forever measured against the canny, tireless reporting and writing he did at the age of 28, after a break-in that ultimately ended a presidency. And he is forever measured against Bob Woodward, his onetime byline buddy and a modern publishing phenomenon. Stolid and utterly focused, Woodward has written more than a dozen books -- six since Bernstein signed the Clinton deal in 1999, all of them bestsellers.

Woodward and Bernstein literally became a brand; the Kleenex or Windex of journalism, if you will. For me personally, they became heroes on the same pedestal as Gordie Howe, Alan Trammell and Dave Bing (Detroit hockey, baseball and basketball legends). In the mid-1980s, I even named my cat “Woodstein.”

Once I moved to the nation’s Capital, I made a promise to myself: If I ever met either Woodward or Bernstein in person, I would walk right up to them and tell them how their work inspired me. In 1998, while working an event that then First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke at (for full disclosure, I worked in the Clinton Administration as a Senior Public Affairs officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development), I saw Bernstein about 50 feet away. He seemed to be walking out of the event.

Without a second thought, I yelled, “Carl!” To my surprise, he stopped. I then hurriedly walked over and introduced myself and told him how much of an inspiration he was to me. I knew about his supposed tough, hard as nails persona, however he was very affable, polite and seemingly humble that a late 30-something guy would run him down to thank him.

I’m not sure I’ll read his new book. I’m not a real big fan of biographies of current presidential candidates. But when the history of journalism, and frankly the history of the 20th Century of American politics is discussed, Carl Bernstein’s name, fame and work is, and always will be, more than a footnote.

Howard Salter

This just in - The Senate Finance Committee just approved a $29 billion package of tax incentives supporting renewables at the expense of the oil and gas industry.

“When the major oil companies are making record profits, consumers are paying record prices, the federal government should not provide record subsidies for the major companies,” said Ron Wyden, D-Ore. 

You said it, Ron... But if you really mean it, how about tackling the hundreds of billions of dollars still flowing to the oil and gas industry through foreign assistance funds?

May I suggest considering a Senate version of H.R. 1886, the End Oil Aid bill introduced by Rep. Hinchey (D-NY)  Can we put it on tomorrow's agenda?

-Becca 

The Senate is entering its second week of deliberations on a proposed energy bill (H.R. 6). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has made it clear that he wants to wrap-up the energy bill by the end of the week, so he can take another stab at moving the immigration reform bill.

The energy bill ran into trouble at the end of last week over several major sticking points: automobile mileage standards, renewable energy, and gasoline price gouging. But the real problem is a fundamental philosophical difference among lawmakers about how to solve the energy challenges facing the U.S. today. Some Senators come from the "Drill more" school of energy policy, others recognize that, in the long run we can't drill ourselves out of the dangers posed by global warming and the geopolitics of oil, and are focusing on cutting consumption and increasing the use of renewables. (Full disclosure: In case you can't tell, I'm with the second group).

"Our legislation would increase production of renewables," Reid said. "We do not believe in the president's theory, the Republicans' theory: drill, drill, drill, more of the same. It reminds me of Iraq." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, quoted by NPR

Here's a brief rundown on some of the bill's trouble spots:

CAFE Standards:

The Senate energy bill currently calls for a 35 miles per gallon fuel efficiency (CAFE) standard for both cars and light trucks by 2020, with annual increases of 4% for both after that. Automakers (and their friends in Congress) are actively opposing this measure, and Sen. Levin (D-Mich) has introduced an alternative amendment that would set CAFE standards at 36 miles per gallon for passenger cars by 2022 and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2025. The auto industry claims that the bill's efficiency standards are unreasonable and "unachievable."

I would argue that what's unreasonable is the fact that these standards haven't been raised in nearly thirty years, and that as a result the United States is now ranked last in the industrialized world on energy efficiency. (My favorite little factoid on this issue is that U.S. automakers can't sell the cars they sell here in China... because they don't meet Chinese efficiency standards.)

Renewable Electricity (Renewable Portfolio Standard):

Republicans have blocked voting on an amendment introduced by Senate Energy Committee Chairman, Jeff Bingaman, which would require utilities to produce 15 % of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This renewable portfolio standard is an important first step if the U.S. is to lead a global transition away from fossil fuel sources of energy. However, Republicans have threatened to filibuster the energy bill if the Bingaman amendment is included. A coalition of major corporations and environmental groups have sent a letter to Congress urging them to support the Bingaman amendment. But it remains to be seen whether the Democratic leadership will risk defeat on the energy bill to save one of its most critical measures.

Fortunately, the Senate was able to defeat a "Clean" Portfolio Standard amendment, introduced by Senator Domenici (the ranking member on the Senate Energy Committee) which would have set a 20% standard for utilities, but would have counted nuclear and certain types of coal generation as "clean" energy.

Price Gouging:

Another measure of the bill that ran into trouble was a provision that would make oil industry "price gouging" a federal crime during times of "national energy emergency." This provision has drawn a veto threat from President Bush, in addition to strong opposition from the oil industry.

Under the Radar: Energy Diplomacy and Security -

One of the measures tucked into the energy bill that you probably won't hear much about this week is also one of the most critical in terms of longterm energy security. If you have been following our work on energy closely you may have noticed that we have been supporting S.193 - the Energy Diplomacy and Security Act of 2007. This bill recognizes the importance of working in partnership with other nations to enhance energy security and develop shared solutions to the energy challenges facing us today. It reforms policymaking and implementation structures, giving policymakers the tools they need to craft effective energy policy. It strengthens global energy crisis response mechanisms, and takes steps to increase developing countries' access to renewable energy technologies. In today's energy-independence dominated debate, it represents a refreshing (and important) effort to introduce meaningful multilateral cooperation into U.S. energy policy.

I'll keep you posted when I hear more...

-Becca

 

A little more than nine months ago, my esteemed colleague Raj Purohit authored an op-ed in The Washington Examiner, “Bush's Evisceration of U.S. and U.K.'s 'Special Relationship' Over 200 Years.”

It seems as if Raj’s “special relationship” is being channeled by the GOP presidential campaign of – oops, he hasn’t officially announced he’s running y-e-t – Fred Thompson, aka, “Mr. Right.”

The former Senator from Tennessee, who now has vaulted to the top of the GOP polling charts with a bullet, is in England this week. According to The Politico’s Mike Allen, Thompson hopes to win the blessing of former Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher:

Thompson's advisers aim to use the London events to bolster his foreign policy credentials and elevate him above the increasingly contentious fray of the GOP race.

On Wednesday, he will pose for photos with Thatcher, which his advisers hope will