The iconic Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) was indicted this week on seven felony counts. Allegedly, he lied on his his financial disclosure forms to conceal information about house renovations and gifts from an oil contractor that lobbied him for government aid. Stevens has claimed his innocence and says he will fight the charges.

Via the Sunlight Foundation, the folks at Real Time Investigations (which is a Sunlight Project) wonder whether Stevens could get off the hook by claiming that the renovations on his house were a loan that he was planning to pay them back for.

[I]f Stevens was borrowing money, labor and materials to renovate a residence from VECO rather than accepting it as a gift, I’m not sure Stevens would have to report it under current personal financial disclosure rules, which say,

property which is held or maintained solely for recreational or personal purposes does not have to be reported…. (p. 131)

and

Mortgages secured by a personal residence (including secondary residences) that are not used for rental purposes do not have to be disclosed. (p. 136)

Who knows whether this interpretation is correct or not, but some folks ain’t waitin’!

Today, Congressman Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced a bill to require Members of Congress to include information on the value of any personal residence and on the balance of any mortgage secured by a personal residence in their annual financial disclosure reports.

H.R. 6644 is the bill, and what people think of it is below. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.

All in a good day’s work. If Senator Stevens gets off on this technicality – which is doubtful – he won’t the next time! (Full disclosure: I worked for Senator Stevens on the staff of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1996.)

I’ll leave no stone unturned as I search for fascinating things that your federal government does. And this morning I’ve found a doozie! Breaking news – you read it here first!

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has decided to begin issuing permits for the importation of dragon fruit from Vietnam!

Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we believe that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of dragon fruit from Vietnam.

Get ready, America, to enjoy the succulent goodness of Vietnamese dragon fruit!

Actually, I’ve had dragon fruit, and it’s just . . . ok. In fact, it definitely takes a back seat to kiwi. But still! The gustatory delights available to us have expanded at least a little bit thanks to this APHIS decision. Thanks APHIS! Thanks USDA!

APHIS is funded annually by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Senate version for fiscal year 2009 is S. 3289. Its passage would cost the average U.S. family a little over $800. (Follow all the annual spending bills on our FY 2009 Congressional Budget and Spending page.) Here’s what people think of it. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article on the bill:

I was struck this morning by a news report on the record budget deficit: $482 billion. That’s about $4,800 per U.S. family or $1,500 per person. The report cited an administration official as saying that the deficit was being driven to an all-time high “by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession.”

Those things are on the list of causes, of course. But they’re not at the top. What’s at the top is spending. There’s no budget deficit without spending. Period.

Other sources had things to say about spending. An L.A. Times opinion piece said that the problem was the Iraq war: “. . . Bush and a compliant Congress launched an invasion of Iraq costing hundreds of billions of dollars and, rather than raise taxes to pay for it, continued to cut them.”

The New York Times reported on the presidential candidates’ comments. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said: “There is no more striking reminder of the need to reverse the profligate spending that has characterized this administration’s fiscal policy.” A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) promised to “cut wasteful spending, close corporate tax loopholes and roll back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, ‘while making health care affordable and putting a middle-class tax cut in the pocket of 95 percent of workers and their families.’” That’s a little too campaign brochure-y for me.

But really, the blame lies with people very close to you – friends of yours who don’t know, or don’t care to know, about the federal spending process.

Good citizen that you are – because you’re reading this blog – you know that Congress spends enough money each year to buy every U.S. family a new car. And you know that it’s up to you decide which of that spending is worth doing and which of it isn’t.

But your friends. They’re not so sharp. You really ought to get them involved. Every bill page on WashingtonWatch.com has a “tell-a-friend” link. It’s in the “Take Action” box. It opens up an email for you to send them.

Pick an annual spending bill. Pick a bill that costs a lot, or one that saves a lot. Tell your friends whether to support it or oppose it.

If you don’t, I’m going to start blaming you. When your budget is out of whack, you either go out and earn more, or you tighten your belt. This is the same process. Get on it.

H.R. 1931 is called the “Catherine Skivers Currency for All Act.” No, it’s not some welfare program – that would be the “Cash for All Act.” It’s about the design of our paper currency.

Catherine Skivers is a former president of the California Council for the Blind and a constituent of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), who introduced the bill. Lucky thing for Stark, she’s in favor of it. What a relief!

Stark’s proposal would round all four corners on the $1 bill, three corners on the $2 bill, cut two diagonal corners on the $5 bill, two corners on a long side of the $10 bill, two corners on the $20 bill’s short side and one corner on the $50 bill. The $100 bill would remain unchanged. (Four square corners? Big money!)

The bill responds to a court ruling that paper money discriminates against blind people because they can’t distinguish among different denominations.

Slam dunk, right? Not so fast.

Here’s the National Federation of the Blind:

Hundreds of thousands of blind people use paper money every day without difficulty. Identifying items by touch (including currency) is convenient, but not essential to the ability of blind people to participate fully in society. For a court to say that if we cannot identify it by touch, we can’t use it is a fiction and a dangerous one. Millions of items that cannot be identified by touch must be managed by the blind in business, industry, and education every day; if the public comes to believe the myth that we cannot manage those items, then we will be denied the equality and opportunity we seek.

Special treatment with regard to currency will reinforce stereotypes about the blind being unable to navigate the society. It’s a fair point, and I have no idea which side is right or wrong on this. What this proves is that anything and everything can be made controversial if you just take it to Washington, D.C.

There will be a hearing in the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology (affectionately known as the “DIMP” subcommittee) on Wednesday.

Here’s the current vote on the bill. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article on the bill:

The animal cruelty bills I wrote about late last week will get a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on Wednesday.

Very little information is available on the Committee’s Web page about the hearing yet. But it’ll show up sometime before 9:30 a.m. Wednesday – or maybe a little after that.

Or maybe a lot after that.

I wrote about the campaigning on S. 3268, the Stop Energy Speculation Act of 2008, here a few days ago.

The debate has taken a new twist as Republicans have pushed to expand domestic oil production as the preferred way of controlling energy prices.

Well, the World Wildlife Fund wants you to know that oil drilling is a big no-no. They’ve put an ad in the New York Times, and they want you to know about it. According to a release they’ve got out on the wires:

While more drilling would have virtually no impact on gas prices, the ad says, it could have a profoundly negative impact on America’s wilderness and waters and could jeopardize the nation’s billion dollar fisheries industry. WWF, which has a team of scientists and experts based in Alaska, notes in the ad that a major oil spill in Alaskan waters – where approximately half of all U.S. seafood is caught – could have a devastating impact on both the economy and the environment. It further states that oil companies have no proven method for cleaning up major oil spills in Arctic waters, further exacerbating the risk to protected areas.

Ah, the push and pull of legislative debate. To stop energy speculation? Drill for more oil? Fair-minded people can see both sides in both sides. And it looks like Congress will go to its August recess like Hamlet, without deciding.

What do you think? Here’s the vote on the Stop Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article.

For your enjoyment and edification, we’ve compiled all the bills in the Coburn Omnibus, which is scheduled for debate this week, and provided you a cost estimate.

As you probably know, every bill page on the WashingtonWatch.com Web site has an unscientific poll of what visitors think of bills. So, below we’ve collected the votes on all the bills in the Coburn Omnibus.

One can’t help but notice: at this writing (and results may change), nearly every bill gets a negative rating from the WashingtonWatch.com community. Why is this? Any number of reasons. Some of them just plain haven’t gotten very many votes – their tallies may change quickly.

But it could be that each of this bills are preferred by a specific small community, while the general audience here on the site doesn’t see the good of them passing.

Do remember that this is an unscientific poll – it’s not the last word on whether a bill should pass, so don’t get too upset if a bill you like isn’t faring well. Send a link around to your pals and see if you can change the numbers. It’s great to see people rally around a bill here.

But first, one technical note: The vote tallies below are displayed using javascript, which is fine with most computers when you run one or two. Thirty-six little javascripts may slow your computer down. If this happens, hit your back button and things should clear up – and please accept our apologies. With that, here are all the bills in the Coburn Omnibus:

(more…)

Here’s the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week. Subscribe here.

From the WashingtonWatch.com Blog Over the past week, the WashingtonWatch.com blog has had posts on animal cruelty, Guantanamo detainees, government paperwork reduction, and many other topics. Visit the blog to see how the bills in Congress are tied to the day’s headlines, what bills are being debated on the House and Senate floor, and to learn some inside stories from the Washington, D.C. beltway.

Featured Items This week, the Senate will debate the controversial “Coburn Omnibus.” S. 3297, the Advancing America’s Priorities Act, combines 36 bills into one. These bills have been held up by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has created this “omnibus” bill to break down the resistance spearheaded by Coburn. On the WashingtonWatch.com blog last week, we listed all the bills that are in the Coburn Omnibus. Passage of the bill would cost the average U.S. family just under $70.00. The House will debate the first of several bills to set spending levels for fiscal year 2009, which begins October 1st. (Watch all the spending bills on our FY 2009 Budget and Spending Process page.) H.R. 6599, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Appropriations Act, 2009, would spend a little over $1,000 per U.S. family on construction in all branches of the U.S. military, and for other projects and programs. It also spends money on a wide variety of veterans benefits programs. S. 3297 The Advancing America’s Priorities Act Costs $69.86 per family H.R. 6599 The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 Costs $1,070.98 per family

What People Think The Advancing America’s Priorities Act 30% For, 70% Against Vote on this Bill The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 50% For, 50% Against Vote on this Bill

Nothing makes the passions rise like animal consumption and cruelty, particularly with respect to horses. In fact, a bill to prohibit slaughter of horses for human consumption is one of the most commented upon here on WashingtonWatch.com.

So I’ll be interested to watch the latest in anti-horse-slaughter legislation. H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008, is a new bill that would provide penalties of up to three years in prison for transporting or trading in horses and horse flesh for human consumption.

It was introduced the same day as a bill to increase collection of data on animal cruelty crimes. That’s the Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008, aka H.R. 6597.

Now, there’s some range of behavior that’s animal cruelty and all good people are against it. Query: Is slaughter of horses inherently cruel?

I know this question boils the blood for some. I’m not asking because I agree or disagree with this legislation. It’s something everyone ought to give some thought to because there are some pretty deep divisions on it in the country, and bills like this seek to decide that question once and for all.

Here’s what people think about H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008 and H.R. 6597, the Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki articles on the bills.

I had to do a double-take when I first saw this bill.

H.R. 6615 would “provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, D.C., where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds . . . .”

OK, I get it.

Some member of Congress doesn’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings on treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and decided to introduce a bill to makes a symbolic point: “Well if the dang Supreme Court wants these guys treated well, they should have to serve ‘em sandwiches and sweet tea right there in their own offices!”

I like sarcasm and irony and all, but on balance I think this annoys me. For a symbolic gesture, this guy put his staff to work, he put the House parliamentarian to work, he put the Government Printing Office to work, and the committees of jurisdiction too (Armed Services and Judiciary).

This is taking the legislative process very unseriously. It wastes a lot of people’s time and money.

So, Louie Gohmert, leave it out next time. There are people who differ with the Supreme Court’s rulings, and they offer serious legislation and serious arguments. They’re doing they’re jobs as they see them, not monkeying around with taxpayers’ money on stunts that they think will make cheap political points.

Reserving my right to applaud abuses of the legislative process that are actually clever, here’s the current vote on the bill. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article on the bill.