Congress from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Congress Moves to Kill Bush's Media Consolidation Rules

Mike Lillis — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:30:00 GMT

The Senate last night approved a binding resolution to scrap new Bush administration rules allowing newspapers to buy up television and radio stations in the nation's largest media outlets. Supported by the White House, the Republican majority of the Federal Communications Commission passed the rules in December, arguing that the greater consolidation will save flailing newspapers by allowing them to consolidate costs.

But opponents of the changes, led by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), say they will empower companies to control too much of the public messaging in certain communities. On the Senate floor yesterday, Dorgan said:

The issue here is simple. We have far too much concentration in the media. The Federal Communications Commission, at least the Chairman and two others who have been members, have become cheerleaders of more concentration. That means less localism. It means your local radio station, in many cases your television station, other media outlets, are run by somebody living 1,500 miles away, running homogenized music through a radio station having nothing to do with covering the local baseball team or news events. I think this moves in exactly the wrong direction.

The bill now moves to the House, where Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) is pushing the same bill. The White House is expected to veto the measure, but media consolidation is one of those rare issues that unites the opposition of both parties. (The Senate voice-vote was nearly unanimous, with vocal opposition from just two members, Georgia GOP Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson.)

With more and more congressional Republicans beginning to distance themselves from an unpopular Bush administration, this issue could produce yet another successful veto override.

Big Ag Sway Clear in Senate Farm Bill

Mike Lillis — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:03:03 GMT

Millionaire farmers will continue getting taxpayer subsidies, sugar producers will inherit more government protections and foreign food aid will take a whack under a five-year, $300 billion farm bill approved by the Senate Thursday.

The vote was a sweeping 81 to 15, far beyond the two-thirds majority needed to override the Bush administration's promised veto. The House approved the same bill Wednesday by a 318 to 106 count, also safely veto-proof. The margins indicate that the bipartisan proposal is almost certain to become law.

Enactment of the enormous bill would mark a rare departure from the legislative stalemate that has otherwise marked the year. Faced with the choice between moving legislation to the right to satisfy the White House or pushing it to next year, Democratic leaders have increasingly picked the latter. That the farm bill is an exception, lends testimony to the influence of the agriculture industry over congressional lawmakers -- and to the fear among party leaders of losing middle-of-the-country seats in November.

Not insignificant, agribusiness has donated roughly $31 million to Washington lawmakers in the 2008 election cycle alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, making it one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation.

Two-thirds of the bill's funding will go toward popular nutrition programs, like food stamps and healthy-snack programs for low-income students. The remainder will fund crop subsidies, disaster farm-relief, biofuel production and land conservation efforts. Sprinkled throughout the package are numerous regional earmarks, like funding for racehorse owners in Kentucky and salmon farmers in California.

"This bill benefits every American, from our smallest towns to our biggest cities, urban and rural residents, farmers and non-farmers," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement.

But opponents wonder if some of the beneficiaries need the help. Under the bill, for example, individuals earning up to $750,000 in farm income and $500,000 in non-farm income are eligible for taxpayer subsidies. That means a farming couple could feasibly take in $2.5 million a year and still receive federal assistance.

Critics also point out that farm operators -- who number more than 2.1 million -- already earn far more than other Americans, with average household incomes estimated to be roughly $90,000 in 2008, according to the Agriculture Department.

"This bill was well designed to avoid every opportunity for serious reform of wasteful, outdated subsidy programs while actually piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending," Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said in a statement. "Commodity prices are through the roof and yet we are still funneling billions of dollars to farm households making up to $2.5 million a year in profit."

Kind, whose district includes a variety of agriculture, was one of just four House Democrats to vote against the bill on Wednesday. Two upper-chamber Democrats, Rhode Island Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed, also opposed the bill.

Even some bill supporters say the income caps are too kind to big farmers. Chris Peterson, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, said subsidizing wealthier farmers pushes up rents and land prices for everyone else. "It makes life a little more miserable for us little guys," he said. "Sooner or later, we're going to have to bite the bullet and get rid of some of these subsidies."

One controversial provision creates a new program to have the government buy surplus sugar from the marketplace and put it toward ethanol production. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the conservative Cato Institute, said that that provision hurts consumers twice: First, when their taxpayer dollars fund the program; and later, when it reduces market supply, thus keeping sugar prices artificially high on the grocery store shelves.

Democratic support for such provisions is puzzling, Edwards said, for it bucks the party's populist approach. "It's a reverse Robin Hood scenario -- to the Democrats' shame," he said, adding that the overall bill is "an abomination."

The White House agrees, arguing that the proposal is too expensive, too generous to wealthy farmers and relies on budget gimmicks to cover the costs.

"It does not target help for the farmers who really need it," Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said in a statement, "and it increases the size and cost of government while jeopardizing the future of legitimate farm programs by damaging the credibility of farm bills in general."

The administration also blasted the proposal for continuing to prohibit the U.S. foreign food aid program from buying crops overseas. Aid groups have long-argued that allowing those dollars to purchase food abroad would expedite delivery to the people in need -- something the White House supports. Agricultural interests, however, have successfully convinced lawmakers of both parties not to change the rules of the $2.1 billion program.

Another foreign food aid program -- the Dole-McGovern International Food for Education program -- also took a hit under the new farm bill. That initiative, named for former Sens. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and George S. McGovern (D-S.D.), encourages low-income kids overseas to attend school by providing them free lunches. Its current budget is roughly $100 million per year, but the new law slashes that figure to about $60 million.

The bill now moves to the president's desk, where it is expected to be vetoed. If lawmakers successfully override it, as is also expected, it would mark just the second time that Congress has overturned a veto under the Bush administration. (The first instance came last fall, on a water projects bill.)

For congressional opponents, the veto offers one last opportunity to eliminate some of the subsidies and divert the money to needier folks. "At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their mortgage, food and energy bills," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), "we should help people who need it and not lavish resources on people who don't."

Blumenhauer shouldn't hold his breath. There are roughly 31 million reasons why the bill will remain as it stands.

Will Conyers Get Rove?

Matthew Blake — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:49:58 GMT

John Conyers, (D-Mi.) has been relentless in his efforts to bring top Bush administration figures before his House Judiciary Committee. The Politico's Ryan Grim reports that Conyers is now after Karl Rove. "We're closing in on Rove," Conyers was overhead saying this afternoon. "Someone's got to kick his ass."

Conyers then told Politico what he would do if Rove doesn't testify. "We'll hold him in contempt." Conyers said. "Either that or go have him arrested."

The Michigan Democrat mostly wants to grill Rove on the Justice Dept's prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Seigelman. But there are other questions Conyers has for Rove. "We want him for so many things," he told Politico. "It's hard to keep track."

Conyers recently got John Ashcroft, John Yoo, Doug Feith and David Addington to agree to testify June 26 about their respective roles in authorizing the administration's detainee interrogation policies.

Weapons For Oil, Part Two

Mike Lillis — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:00:00 GMT

Last month, a group of Senate Democrats had a eureka moment: The rising cost of fuel, they said, is largely the fault of Middle Eastern oil-producers, who simply aren't doing their part to pump more oil. The lawmakers threatened to halt billions of dollars in already approved armed sales to those countries if they failed to ramp up production.

On Tuesday, the same senators took their push a step further, introducing a resolution of disapproval to scrap $1.4 billion-worth of pending arms sales to Saudi Arabia if the royal kingdom doesn't hike its oil production by 1 million barrels a day. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the sponsors, said the price of gas at home should take priority over the sale of weapons abroad. Schumer's words, according to The Associated Press:

We are saying to the Saudis that, if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?

We are saying that we need real relief, and we need it quickly. You need our arms, but we need you to cooperate and not strangle American consumers.

While we're playing the leverage game, we might also ask the Saudis to quit funding terrorists, locking up bloggers and banning women from driving. But those, it seems, are less important than lower prices at the pump.

Ron Paul Warns Burma Tyrants: We'll Stay Out of Your Way!

Mike Lillis — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:10:19 GMT

The House yesterday approved a lightweight, nonbinding resolution offering condolences to the people of Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis, which the Red Cross now estimates took as many as 128,000 lives when it struck the Irrawaddy Delta earlier this month. From a political standpoint, this was a pretty safe vote. Indeed, 186 Republicans joined every voting Democrat to pass the measure. But it didn't go unanimously. That's because Texas GOP presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul disapproved. The final count was 410 to 1.

Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma's ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. That referendum, intended simply to solidify the junta's grip on the country, was held May 10 -- three days before the House vote.

No matter.

"It interferes with the internal affairs of another country," Mills said. "It's just none of our business."

Take that -- Than Shwe !

Pelosi, Blue Dogs Agree on Millionaires Tax to Fund GI Bill

Mike Lillis — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:34:18 GMT

Conservative Democrats and party leaders in the House will propose a millionaires tax to fund a popular proposal to expand education benefits to post-9/11 vets, The Associated Press reports today. The conservative “Blue Dog” members support the concept of a more generous GI Bill, but balked at the $51.8 billion cost, which Democratic leaders wanted to ignore by sticking the proposal to an emergency war spending bill. The Blue Dogs said they would withdraw their support for the GI Bill provision unless it was paid for -- a conflict that’s delayed debate on the spending bill until Thursday, at the earliest.
Under the new plan, individuals earning over $500,000 and couples earning over $1 million a year would get slapped with a half-percent tax surcharge. The AP quotes Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark) with the following:

What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million. So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it.

Not that the proposal will get very far. Though the GI Bill enjoys significant bipartisan support in the Senate, there’s no indication that the tax-hike offset would keep enough Republicans on board to pass the upper chamber. On top of that, President George W. Bush has vowed to veto any tax increase that hits his desk.

But paying for the GI Bill will do is this: It will get the Blue Dogs on board, allowing the proposal to pass the House (which requires just a simple majority), and forcing GOP senators to make a tough election year choice: Do they vote for the tax hike or against the veterans benefit? We could know as early as next week.

Blue Dogs Resist Unfunded GI Bill

Mike Lillis — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:02:40 GMT

In an earlier era, Navy Reservist Elizabeth Lahny's combat service abroad might have merited comprehensive education benefits when she returned home. Instead, the Boise State University junior is struggling with college loans and a part-time job that pays minimum wage. The current GI Bill, she says, is enough to cover only the rent.

Despite her service in Iraq, the 27-year-old Idahoan faces a sea of debt.

"I carried an M-16 for six months," Lahny said at a Capitol Hill rally for better benefits last month. "Now I'm probably going to carry student loan debt for the rest of my life."

House Democrats this week hope to pass legislation that would change that, expanding the existing GI Bill to cover more college costs for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate, as well, hopes to tackle the proposal before the month's end.

The push has gained prominence five years into an Iraq conflict for which relatively few Americans outside the armed service community have been asked to sacrifice anything at all. Supporters of the expanded education benefit, sponsored by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), point out how an entire generation of World War II veterans benefited from the first GI Bill of 1944 -- and how the nation as a whole benefited, in turn, from the millions-strong wave of newly educated citizens.

To offer the same opportunity for the vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, supporters of the Webb bill argue, is the least the country can do to reward their sacrifices.

But Democratic leaders face tough opposition from both sides of the aisle. Conservative Republicans oppose the policy, arguing that the benefits are too generous; while conservative-leaning House Democrats -- the Blue Dogs -- oppose the process, maintaining that the 10-year, $52-billion cost should be offset rather than borrowed, as party leaders have proposed.

House Democrats hope to score a political victory by voting separately to attach the education proposal to a must-pass emergency war spending bill -- all but daring Republicans to vote against a veterans benefit just before Memorial Day in an election year. The bill would then move to the Senate, where the same scenario could force some Republican senators -- including likely GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) -- into a similarly uncomfortable vote. To get the bill out of the House, however, will likely require cooperation from the 47-member-strong Blue Dogs, whose opposition to the off-budget GI Bill came as a surprise. The shakeup pushed House debate on the war spending package to later this week.

Among House Democrats, the conflict boils down to this: Do lawmakers have a greater responsibility to the returning troops or to future generations via smaller budget deficits? The saga underscores the difficulty of moving legislation in a high-stakes election year -- when lawmakers want to be seen working hard in Washington, but political wrangling ensures the failure of most big ideas.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) has said that the Democratic differences would be ironed out this week. But Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said Tuesday that he has no intention of backing down. "The Blue Dogs still have plenty of fight," Cooper said.

Budget watchdog groups are cheering Cooper and the other opposition Democrats, arguing that the country can't afford a new mandatory, but unfunded, spending program -- regardless of how well-intentioned it is. Though the Webb bill proposes a 15-year sunset for individual benefits, these budget groups point out that there is currently no end in sight to the U.S. military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. "It is by far the longest-running benefit in the bill," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog.

Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition, which also pushes for fiscal responsibility in government, delivered a letter to Blue Dog leaders Monday applauding their resolve.

"[Y]our insistence that expanded benefits be paid for demonstrates a willingness to honor our veterans' sacrifice with some sacrifice of our own," Bixby wrote. "Surely, proponents of this benefit do not mean to suggest that it is only worth doing if it doesn't have to be paid for."

As a budget gimmick, Congress under leadership of both parties has relied on emergency supplemental bills to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That strategy has allowed lawmakers to secure war funding without offsetting the costs through unpopular tax hikes or cuts to other programs. Because those bills aren't paid for, they've also been popular vehicles for other proposals. Democratic leaders announced earlier in the month that the GI Bill expansion would be one such rider to the latest emergency spending proposal.

That bill also includes roughly $162.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which is offset. The Blue Dogs have historically voted for such off-budget funding when it goes directly to the war effort -- and appear poised to do the same this time around.

Charles Stenholm, a former Texas Democrat and prominent Blue Dog, said there is a distinction to be made between funding the troops in the field and granting them education benefits when they return. "The problem with the war is that it is a fact," said Stenholm, now a lobbyist with the Washington-based firm Olsson Frank Weeda. "It is going on … You don't have any choice on that one. On the GI Bill, you do have a choice."

But veterans groups and many Democrats -- including Pelosi -- contend the expanded education benefit is just another cost of the wars. If the Blue Dogs are willing to drop pay-as-you-go budget rules to continue those conflicts, they argue, then they should be willing to do the same to reward the service of soldiers when they return.

In a scathing statement issued last week, liberal New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D) accused his fellow party members of applying "inconsistent logic" in regards to funding the GI Bill.

"How can the Blue Dog Coalition possibly say that an expansion of education benefits is too costly," Hinchey said, "when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply respect?"

Under the Webb bill, post-9/11 veterans could begin receiving education benefits after serving three months in Iraq or Afghanistan. The full benefit would kick in after three years of service, at which time veterans would be eligible for full tuition at any state school. Additional stipends would cover room, board, books and other supplies.

"This is not a difficult concept," Webb said at last month's Capitol rally. "For all the people who have been saying that this is the new 'Greatest Generation,' this is the easiest way for all of us to prove that."

The White House opposes the proposal, however, arguing that its generosity will lure soldiers out of their uniforms and into the classroom -- an exodus that would be a bane to an all-volunteer military already stressed by two active conflicts. A report from the Congressional Budget Office last week bolstered the administration's case, concluding that the Webb bill would increase recruitment by 16 percent, but simultaneously cut re-enlistment by another 16 percent. The cumulative effect would be a net loss in service members requiring roughly $1 billion over five years to patch, CBO estimates.

The Bush administration favors an alternative plan -- sponsored by McCain -- that caps the benefits and phases them in over a longer time-span. This, McCain says, would encourage troop retention.

The cost of the McCain bill, however, also runs into the billions of dollars. If the Blue Dogs have their way, no strategy will move without offsets.

Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), said Tuesday that House leaders are in discussions with the Blue Dogs over how to pay for the Webb proposal. But $52 billion is a hefty tab to offset, even by Washington standards, and revenue sources are few. Program cuts in an election year are unlikely, and President George W. Bush has said he will veto any tax hikes. The storm of factors could push the issue to next year, when Democrats are expected to have broader congressional majorities, and a new administration will control the White House.

For returned veterans like Elizabeth Lahny, the new benefit might arrive too late to be of much help. But as the Idaho reservist told Boise's ABC affiliate recently: "I don't know they'll be able to get the funding in time to help me. But I want it for other veterans."

A Mississippi Litmus Test

Mike Lillis — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:00 GMT

After losing two House seats in two conservative districts in two months, Republicans are cringing at the thought of another special election catastrophe. But today's run-off to replace seven-term GOP Rep. Roger Wicker (who replaced the retiring Sen. Trent Lott earlier this year) in Mississippi's conservative 1st District is closer than many expected, leading both parties to hit the campaign trail hard in recent days with cash and incumbents.

The Politico this morning lends a sense of what's at stake:

A third loss in Tuesday's 1st District special election would prompt new predictions of electoral doom in November, hurt the party's already flagging morale and usher in a new round of public finger-pointing among an already fractured GOP leadership.

So desperate are Republicans to keep the seat that Vice President Dick Cheney visited the district Monday. Given the administration's dismal approval ratings, though, that might not be the type of help they need.

On GI Bill, Obama Hopes to Draw Distinction from McCain

Mike Lillis — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:45:00 GMT

As presidential hopeful Barack Obama shifts his focus from the primary contest to the general election, he's trumpeting his support for a congressional proposal to extend education benefits to post-9/11 vets -- and reminding voters that the likely GOP nominee, John McCain, opposes the same plan.

The distinction could prove a tough one for McCain. Though the Arizona senator has a GI Bill proposal of his own, it doesn't go nearly as far as the Obama-supported plan, sponsored by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), which is expected to reach the House floor this week. McCain has adopted the White House line that the Webb bill -- which offers full state tuition after three years of service -- is so generous that it would entice troops to leave the military earlier than they otherwise might. (The McCain plan, meanwhile, offers a $1,500 monthly stipend after six years of service).

On the stump in West Virginia today, Obama emphasized the divide:

I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

Democrats hope to have the bill to the president before Memorial Day. The significance of McCain's opposition to the stronger benefit might soon be revealed.

Don't Blame DHS

Matthew Blake — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:59:59 GMT

From color-coded terror alerts to FEMA and now, in a Washington Post series, dubiously detained immigrants, there are few bigger Bush administration targets than the Dept. of Homeland Security. But in many instances DHS is working with both the hand that Congress and the president dealt them.

Take the Real ID Act that I wrote about, which sets federal standards for what goes on state's drivers licenses. Publicly, DHS plays up the program as necessary in the fight against terrorism and identity theft. DHS Spokesman Russ Knocke told me that the ID cards are necessary because nobody wants to say they wanted looser identification laws "before the next 9/11 commission." DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff has vowed the program will "kill three birds with one stone" by fighting terrorism, stopping identity theft, and-- with data-sharing between states-- cracking down on drunk driving.

For their enforcement of the Real ID law, DHS is blasted by state legislatures, civil liberty groups, the travel industry and, well, pretty much everyone beside George Bush. In fact, for granting extensions to the Real ID program, they're even criticized by hardline conservatives like Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wi.), who crafted Real ID in the first place.

But what choice does DHS have in the matter? As a federal agency, the department implements policy that others create. Certainly on issues of competence and judgment like how flood victims or undocumented immigrants are treated, department officials and staff deserve blame. But it was the president and Congress in 2002 (the Senate 90-9 ), not DHS employees or even Michael Chertoff, that decided one department would prevent the next terrorist attack, respond to all natural and man-made disasters, and enforce immigration policy. It's not easy to kill three birds with one stone.

Is Real ID Really Going to Happen?

Matthew Blake — Mon, 12 May 2008 05:54:06 GMT

Yesterday, May 11, was when the Real ID Act, signed into law three years ago to the day, was due to kick in.

The law set national standards for all state driver's licenses and other forms of photo identification. It directs states to store people's drivers license information in a database, along with additional identity information, like a digital copy of each person's birth certificate. The law mandates that all state databases are to be linked. By now, every state should have built this database and issued Real ID-compliant licenses to all residents.

But you don't need to worry about these new ID's. The law has yet to go into effect.

Little about Real ID has gone as planned. All 50 states, and the District of Columbia, were given extensions by the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with Real ID. This extension was given despite the fact that 17 states passed resolutions saying they have no intention of ever implementing the program.

State governors and legislatures, members of Congress and civil-liberties groups have slammed Real ID. They say the program is an unfunded mandate and that the federal government should not be in the business of directing how states issue identifications in the first place. They also argue that the linked databases, complete with comprehensive identity information on people from every state, creates a "one-stop shop" for identity theft.

Slipped into "must pass" legislation to fund the war in Iraq and help victims from the December 2004 Southeast Asian tsunami, Real ID is now one of Washington's most maligned policy programs. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) is leading a bipartisan effort in the Senate to repeal the law and replace it with recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. The commission recommended that states and civil-liberties groups negotiate with the federal government in developing minimum ID standards.

So Real ID could be killed, most likely in the next administration. It's still not a sure thing that, if implemented, the more modest and politically popular 9/11 commission guidelines would strike the right balance among state's rights, personal privacy and the need to stop identity theft. The broad post-9/11 support for national ID standards could turn out to be an unworkable policy in any incarnation.

"I don't think that just because the 9/11 commission said it was a good idea necessarily makes its a good idea." said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group opposed to Real ID.

The "Identification Security Enhancement Act," was introduced last year by Akaka, and has since picked up Republican co-sponsors Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.). It would follow suggestions from the 9/11 commission, which concluded that more identification requirements were needed because all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was able to obtain a driver's license. Instead of outlining what information should go on a license or be stored in a database, the 9/11 Commission said it was best to let states, civil-liberties organizations and security experts set up a group to develop ID standards.

These recommendations were actually briefly law, after passage in December 2004 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. In fact, the Dept. of Homeland Security had started to assemble the rule-making coalition.

But they were overwritten when Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pasted the Real ID Act into a 2005 emergency spending bill for the war in Iraq and the Asian tsunami. With Real ID, the federal government was now setting requirements on state-issued ID's instead of working with states and other stakeholders.

"By bringing everyone together," Akaka said at a Senate oversight hearing last week that garnered bipartisan criticism of Real ID. "I believe that we can address the problems with Real ID and have secured drivers licenses faster than through the time frame proposed by DHS's final rules."

That time frame for Real ID has already been pushed back twice. The original May 11, 2008 deadline has been extended to Dec. 31, 2009. But states can request an extension from DHS, to be compliant by 2011. And states don't need to issue Real ID's for residents over 50 until 2017-- nine years after the original deadline.

Critics of Real ID see the extensions as a sign that the Bush administration doesn't seriously want to deal with implementation problems. "By granting all 50 states waivers, the current administration has handed off the issue to the next administration," said Jim Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, another group against Real ID.

Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that DHS has not seriously addressed the need to develop technology that can safely store personal ID information on a database shared by all 50 states. Sparapani said that the linked databases create an appealing target for terrorists, or any identity thief.

"If I break into a database in Alabama, I don't just get Alabama information." Sparapani said . "I get information from all states." He added that the extra identification requirements will give a hacker the information to commit identity fraud.

To develop secure databases and issue new licenses, homeland security now estimates that Real ID implementation will cost $3.9 billion. Sensenbrunner's original estimate was $100 million, and so far homeland security has issued just $79.8 million in grants. Congress and the administration are reluctant, however, to make up the difference.

Part of the reason is that many state legislatures have made clear to Washington that they reject Real ID on principle. On the basis of state's right and privacy concerns, 17 states have officially announced they won't comply with Real ID, even if the money were available.

DHS, nonetheless, granted compliance extensions even to those states, saying that they are working to meet national security standards. "Whatever their motivations may be, states are taking measures toward the path of Real ID compliance," said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for DHS.

Critics of Real ID pointed out that DHS had little choice. "Being at DHS is not an easy job," said Tien, at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Congress has given them a stinky bill that they now have to make look workable."

Repealing Real ID then, through the Akaka bill, has better prospects under a new administration that might give homeland security a clean slate. "It's a political rule that nobody creates controversy during an election year," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian Cato institute, "But we'll probably see it introduced again with a high likelihood of passage in December 2009, when states can apply for an additional extension."

Like Tien, Harper is uncertain whether Akaka's bill with the 9/11 commission recommendations is a good thing. "It's obviously an improvement," he said. But Harper added he prefers "pushing aside Real ID to create a new post-9/11 conversation."

Some proponents of federal ID standards say that civil libertarians would create opposition to any kind of baseline ID requirement. "When Americans think up about national ID cards, it drives them up the wall," said Amitai Etzioni, director at the Institute of Communitarian Studies at George Washington University. "Even after 9/11, they think of it as totalitarian."

Along with never satisfying privacy advocates, Etizioni said that the negotiated rule-making called for by the 9/11 commission is wrong to expect that all 50 states could get on the same page. "If you negotiate with the states," he said, "each will have their own ideas."

But many Real ID critics do see the Akaka bill as a pragmatic solution. "There is a certain amount of national leadership needed to bring all the states up to certain minimum standards," said Dempsey, at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Negotiated rule-making with state and local officials and privacy advocates is the right approach."

The Real ID Act was added onto a bill with no public debate on whether it effectively combated terrorism and identity theft. Almost all sides now talk about wanting Congress and the next administration to discuss the pitfalls of national standards, before killing, keeping or revising Real ID.

"I'm hopeful that Real ID will collapse under the weight of everyone's lack of enthusiasm," said Tien. "The real question is what comes next."

US Health Care: When Is a Crisis a Crisis?

Mike Lillis — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:30:00 GMT

A piece we ran this morning examines the current crisis in health care and the political barriers to fixing it. As the story points out, the U.S. spent about 16 percent of its gross domestic product -- or $2.1 trillion -- on health care in 2006. That raises the question: What do comparable countries spend on the same thing?

The quick answer: Not nearly as much. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents 30 developed-world democracies, Switzerland is second behind the U.S., spending 11.5 percent of its GDP on health care in 2004, the last year when comprehensive data are available. (By comparison, the U.S. spent 15.2 percent of GDP in the same year). Japan and the United Kingdom spent about half of what we did in 2004: 8.0 and 8.1 percent of GDP, respectively.

And that would be fine if the health benefits for all that health care spending were tangible. But it's simply not the case. With half the health care spending of America, for example, Japan's life expectancy is more than four years longer, according to the OECD. Infant mortality -- at 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births -- is higher in the U.S. than in all the other OECD countries except Mexico and Turkey. And among the 26 countries reporting deaths from medical errors, the U.S. has the third-highest rate, behind Austria and Greece.

Also of dubious distinction, Americans die from preventable conditions at rates higher than citizens of all other industrialized nations, according to a 2008 study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. While researchers noted that the reasons for that trend are many, one contributor is the "comparatively poor performance of the U.S. health care system," the Health Affairs journal pointed out at the time.

Seems that sometimes, you don't get what you pay for.

GI Bill Progress Snagged

Mike Lillis — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:24:45 GMT

House Democrats hoping to expand education benefits for post-9/11 war vets face a tough road ahead after the cost estimate became public yesterday, revealing a 10-year pricetag of $51.8 billion. Chamber leaders had hoped to attach the proposal to the emergency war spending bill set to hit the House floor next week. The education amendment would update the current GI Bill to provide Iraq and Afghanistan war vets with full state-school tuition after three years of service.

But conservative Democrats -- the so-called Blue Dogs -- are balking at the costs, which are not offset by increased revenues or cuts to other programs. (Emergency bills are exempt from pay-as-you-go budget rules, meaning the increased costs would be covered by money borrowed from overseas.)

In this morning's Washington Post , Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a Blue Dog, is quoted as saying:

We have a duty as a country to tend to [returning soldiers]. But we also have a duty as a country to pay for them.

Funny that the same rule doesn't apply to costs surrounding the other elements of the war. The supplemental spending bill is expected to include an additional $162.5 billion to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan running -- none of it offset.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) told reporters yesterday that the intra-party spending conflict would be resolved before next week:

We will see next week when we come to the floor what we have. I am very confident that next week we will come to the floor with a bill that has the full consensus of the Democrats and hopefully can attract a large number of Republicans as well.

That's different than saying, however, that the expanded GI Bill would be included.

Health Care Reform Waits

Mike Lillis — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:04:07 GMT

In 2004, Tommy Thompson, then-Health and Human Services secretary, approached his boss with a request. Observing that the nation's doctors and hospitals operate a tangled web of incompatible forms and technologies, Thompson asked President George W. Bush to create a universal system of electronic medical records that would follow patients around the country, eliminate redundant treatments and, according to some estimates, trim billions of dollars from the nation's annual health care tab. Thompson wanted the president to establish the system within 18 months.

"He came out for 10 years," Thompson said this week, "and as a result, we haven't been able to get there."

The anecdote, which Thompson told the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday, offers a glimpse of the obstacles facing health-reform advocates. With medical costs skyrocketing, employers increasingly dropping or trimming coverage, Medicare projected to go belly-up in a decade and the number of uninsured Americans tickling the 50 million mark, most observers contend the health-care system needs a complete overhaul. But such shakeups are rare in Washington, where special interests spend millions to keep things as they are, and the political will to confront industry is all but absent. Instead, lawmakers tend to dabble at the edges of problems until sweeping change becomes unavoidable. The health reform debate now seems to revolve around when that time will arrive.

Thompson said that 2009 brings a great opportunity to overhaul the system. He argued that, politically, big reform will be feasible with the arrival of a new administration, while, fiscally, it will be necessary because of Medicare's looming bankruptcy.

"It's the perfect storm," he said.

On Thompson's side, there is near-unanimous agreement that the health-care system is broken. Patient advocates, for example, decry the millions of uninsured; employers want a coverage model that won't nip their competitive edge over foreign companies, and doctors and hospitals want to spend less time wrangling with insurers over payments. Taken together, the troubles reveal a system in need of transformation. "One piece is not going to do it," Thompson said. "It is too broken."

Congressional lawmakers acknowledge as much. But identifying the problem is different than agreeing on the solution. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and tax policy, conceded the "many difficult decisions" lawmakers face.

For that reason alone, few observers agree with Thompson that the reforms will arrive next year. David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, argued that health care costs threaten to bankrupt the country if Congress fails to act, but an overhaul won't -- and shouldn't -- come overnight.

"It is possible to achieve some incremental reforms next year," said Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which aims to promote solutions to America's budget challenges, "but comprehensive reform will have to be done in stages over a number of years."

The health care debate arrives during an election year when polls reveal that the struggling economy and the war in Iraq are foremost on voters' minds. Donna Shalala, secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton, however, called those polls "misleading."

"It seems very clear that when Americans talk about their economic concerns," she told Senate lawmakers, "they're talking about health care."

The three current presidential hopefuls have each unveiled ambitious health reform plans, though in each case, the details -- like how to pay for universal coverage -- have been kept purposefully vague to avoid criticism. Experts point to popular bipartisan proposals, like renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, as probable successes in 2009. But change on the scale that many say is needed to fix the entire system remains an idea for the more distant future.

"Taking something as big as health care, you're just asking for trouble if you try to do it in one fell swoop," said David Merritt, project director at the Center for Health Transformation, a right-leaning Washington-based policy organization. "Hillary Clinton can testify to that."

Merritt's reference was to the health care overhaul proposed in the first years of the Clinton administration. Facing well-heeled opposition from the insurance industry, among others, the plan went down in flames. Its failure was seen as a turning point for the administration, and is often cited as a central contributor to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

In a 1995 issue of Health Affairs magazine, several architects of the Clinton proposal weighed in on the reasons for the plan's failure, and offered some advice to future administrations.

"We have seen that although the 'window of opportunity' might exist for major government action to address a particular policy issue, the tendency is for experts to overestimate the willingness of middle-class Americans to sacrifice and risk the uncertain consequences of major changes in their lives," wrote Robert J. Blendon, Mollyann Brodie, and John Benson, who had all worked on the Clinton plan.

"Thus, if substantial reform is to be achieved during these windows of opportunity, the legislation must be more modest in its reach than many reformers may see as desirable."

Reached by phone this week, Blendon said, "I haven't changed my mind a bit."

Blendon, a professor of health policy at Harvard University, pointed out an irony underlying the health-reform debate: While many Americans express dissatisfaction with the current system, many also harbor a fear of change. "Some of these reforms, while they might make great policy sense, won't have any legs when brought to the public," he said. "They are risk averse to a lot of changes in the health-care sector."

Instead, Blendon said, reform advocates in and out of Congress will probably have to wait a few more years until the crisis becomes the subject of more dinner-table conversations.

"Governments solve things when they perceive a crisis facing the middle class that they can't escape from," he said. "And then everyone says we should have done it 10 years ago. But it needs to be perceived as a real crisis and it needs to be on the front pages every day. Then you can really do big things."

Yet, all sides of the debate agree that the current system is a train-wreck -- and they have the statistics to back it up. In 2006, Americans spent roughly $2.1 trillion on health care, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services -- roughly 16 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, or $7,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Meanwhile, medical inflation (at 6.7 percent) is about twice that of overall inflation. Without legislative changes, the Congressional Budget Office projects that total health care spending will jump to 25 percent of GDP in 2025 and 37 percent in 2050.

Despite all the spending, 47 million Americans are uninsured.

"The problems are greater than the incremental solutions that Congress has tried to date," Baucus said in a statement.

Baucus faces a difficult task. From the left, liberal Democrats and patient advocates are pushing to increase the government's role in covering the uninsured while improving care for millions more. From the right, conservative Republicans and the numerous medical industries are urging more patient responsibility and privatization of care. The ultimate strategy will inevitably involve some compromise on everyone's part -- and a tangible crisis to bring it about.

As Peter Orszag, head of the Congressional Budget Office, told reporters last November: "The political system is not very good at dealing with gradual problems. It's good at dealing with crises."

The question remains when America's health-care system will be perceived as such.

You, Too, Can Suckle the Government Teat

Mike Lillis — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:58:57 GMT

Senate Democrats yesterday unveiled an energy reform proposal that would eliminate roughly $17 billion in federal subsidies to the nation's largest oil companies and apply a 25 percent "windfall profits" tax to companies not invested in renewable energies.

The bill arrives as gas prices are hitting record highs and the big oil companies -- including Exxon-Mobil, BP and Shell -- are recording record profits.

Republicans are howling, wondering why in the world we don't just open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. They need not worry. Even if the Democrats' proposal sneaks through the Senate, it has no chance of becoming law (the White House threatened to veto a similar House bill in February).

Still, all this talk of eliminating oil subsidies has got the gas companies a bit on edge. And they've responded with a brilliant marketing campaign.

Open The Washington Post to A-5 today, and a full-page ad asks, "Do you own an oil company?"

It goes on to explain:

If you own mutual funds or a retirement account, chances are you're among the tens of millions of Americans with a stake in the oil and natural gas industry. A recent study by economist and former Clinton Administration official Robert Shapiro found the majority of oil and gas company shareholders are "middle-class U.S. households with mutual fund investments, pension accounts or other retirement accounts and small portfolios."

So when Congress starts talking about raising energy taxes or taking "excess profits" from U.S. oil companies, look at the facts and ask yourself, "who does that really hurt?"

The message is clear: These subsidies don't just give the gas company CEOs their enormous retirement packages, they also prop up your financial health. Never mind the effect on the environment, or budget deficits, or the dubious geopolitical relationship with the Middle East -- this is about you.

As a friend pointed out: This is the genius of the Rovian push to create an ownership society. When we're all invested, no critics will remain.

GI Bill on the Move

Mike Lillis — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:06:13 GMT

House lawmakers plan to attach an updated GI Bill to the $178 billion Iraq spending package set to hit the chamber floor Thursday -- a move that could lead to a showdown with the Bush administration, which opposes the proposal.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), has strong bipartisan support in both chambers, but the White House and a number of conservatives oppose the plan as being too generous.

The editors at National Review summarized the complaints Monday:

Webb's bill, cosponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, would provide the full range of benefits after only three years, thus eliminating one of the most valuable incentives to troop retention.

Under current law, the full benefits vest only after six years, which means that soldiers who have served three years and are facing a second deployment -- the most valuable soldiers in the military -- have an incentive to stay through that deployment in order to get their college tuition fully covered, in most cases. The Webb-Hagel bill would eliminate this incentive, which is one reason Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposes it.

Bill supporters say that's nonsense, arguing that the better benefit: (1) is deserved, and (2) will help recruitment. Democrats are sly to bring the bill to the floor now, all but daring conservative opponents to vote against an expanded vets benefit just before Memorial Day in an election year.

But by attaching the proposal to the Iraq supplemental bill, House leaders may attract some opposition from their own ranks. Emergency spending bills are exempt from pay-as-you-go budget rules, making them attractive for lawmakers hoping to pass pet projects without having to pay for them. But budget hawks, including a number of conservative Democrats, decry the method for adding to already enormous budget deficits.

The Hill today reported on one such Democrat:

"The GI bill is a classic example of something we’d love to do if it were paid for,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition and a senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, told The Hill Monday.

He suggested the bill would not properly honor veterans if it contributed to the U.S. budget deficit.

“I bet most veterans would be shocked to learn that we’re putting their needs on a credit card instead of paying for them like we should,” Cooper said.

Farm Bill Slashes International Food Aid Program

Mike Lillis — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:56:53 GMT

Congress has found a novel way to address the food crisis facing the developing world: Slash the budget for a bipartisan program providing school lunches to poor kids abroad to encourage them to remain in school.

According to The Washington Post this morning:

Under a deal worked out in the last few days, required spending on the Dole-McGovern International Food for Education program was set at $60 million. That is $780 million less than proposed by the House, and $40 million less than was allocated in the expiring farm bill.

That's Dole, as in former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), and McGovern, as in former Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.). Neither is pleased with the development, and said so in a biting op-ed this morning, also in the Post:

How can the world's hungriest schoolchildren be denied meals while the farm bill being debated in a House-Senate conference provides millions in subsidies for wealthy farmers? That's what Congress proposes. In all fairness, it should not become law…

At a time when increasingly high food prices are pushing millions of families around the globe deeper into poverty, we must step up, not reduce, our efforts to feed hungry schoolchildren.

The change is particularly callous considering the windfall on tap for the domestic sugar industry. And it's hardly a partisan issue. With $300 billion in farm-bill cash set to be spread around over five years, farm-state lawmakers from all ideologies are in line for a handout. As The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, is pushing provisions that would force any sugar imports to be used exclusively for ethanol production -- meaning U.S. sugar producers would have no competition on the grocery-store shelves.

As the Journal dryly notes, Peterson's "district is among the nation's top producers of sugar beets."

Under the headline "A Sweetheart Deal," a Post editorial today points out the practical consequences of those sugar subsidies:

The Sweetener Users Association, an organization of sugar-using industries, estimates that the farm bill will add $2 billion to grocery bills over five years. Commodity prices and farm incomes are exploding, imposing higher food costs on American consumers and threatening poor people around the world with outright hunger. Perhaps only in the U.S. Congress could it seem like a good time to compound the problem with a dose of sugar shock.

The Bush administration opposes the sugar provisions, and might yet succeed in eliminating them (the deal is not yet finalized). But one thing is already certain: Those poor school kids didn't hire the right lobbyist.

Yoo, Ashcroft to Testify; Addington May Follow

Matthew Blake — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:56:32 GMT

John Yoo, who authored the Justice Department's terrorist interrogation policy, has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Meanwhile, the committee decided to subpoena David Addington, the vice-president's chief of staff, after he failed to appear on a voluntary basis this morning.

Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell says the date for Yoo's testimony has not been set. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has also agreed to testify at an undetermined date.

The testimony of Yoo, Ashcroft- and possibly Addington- has been long awaited. Hopefully it will provide some answers about how much top White House officials telegraphed human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay.

Mending Mental Health Coverage?

Mike Lillis — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:43:35 GMT

For the estimated 60 million Americans suffering from mental illness, treatment can be an elusive and costly ordeal. Many health care plans don't cover mental care, and those that do usually provide lesser benefits for mental disorders than for physical ailments. Co-payments, for mental patients, are usually higher. In addition, the last major federal law tackling the problem is 12 years old.

Now Congress is hoping to fix some of that. Bills passed in both the House and Senate would require most employer-based health plans to eliminate the current pay discrepancies between coverage for mental and physical conditions. Supporters say that equating the two -- and thus establishing "parity" -- is long overdue. Helping their push, the stigma that's contributed to the legal discrimination has slowly faded as scientists uncover the biological and genetic causes of mental disorders.

"There is no shame in mental illness," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) said following passage of the House bill in March. "The great shame would be if Congress had not taken action."

But much work remains. Significant disparities between the Senate and House bills have forced sponsors into informal but delicate negotiations. The saga has aligned senators of both parties, the White House, business groups and the insurance industry -- all of whom support more business-friendly reforms -- against House lawmakers pushing for broader patient benefits.

The negotiations could prove a dilemma for House Democrats, who have increasingly shown an eagerness to stand firm on non-compulsory legislation in lieu of caving to the demands of industry and the administration. Led by Pelosi, Democrats in Congress's lower chamber have confronted the White House head-on over wiretapping legislation and a free trade deal with Columbia, for example -- in each case supporting the populist agenda that swept the party into power two years ago. The resulting stalemates seem to indicate that Democrats would be willing to kick these issues to next year, when the party is expected to command larger congressional majorities and, perhaps, control the White House.

Mental health advocates are optimistic the parity reforms will move this year -- and they have several things working in their favor. First, the Senate bill has broad bipartisan support, with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) a leading force behind it. Also, two long-time champions of parity -- Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) -- are retiring at the end of the year, putting pressure on lawmakers in both chambers to honor their work by enacting reforms before they depart. Both lawmakers have personal investments in the the parity push: Domenici's daughter has schizophrenia, and Ramstad is a recovering alcoholic.

In the eyes of Washington's power-brokers, their cause hardly constitutes must-pass legislation, but with some momentum behind it, the parity legislation could be a rare instance of an election-year success.

Neither the House nor Senate bill forces insurers to cover mental treatments. But under both proposals, group health plans that opt to cover such care could no longer make the mental benefits more restrictive or costly than those for comparable medical and surgical treatments.

A 1996 law took a step in this direction, preventing insurers from applying different limits on annual or lifetime payments. But plans may still discriminate in other ways, like charging mental patients higher co-pays and restricting the number of days they can spend in the hospital.

Elizabeth Prewitt, government relations director for the National Assn. of State Mental Health Program Directors, which supports the House bill, said that roughly 67 percent of adults and 80 percent of children requiring mental health services go without -- a trend exacerbated by discriminatory insurance practices.

"If the patient has financial limitations," Prewitt said, "they often don't seek treatment at all."

Both the House and Senate bills apply only to group health plans covering 50 people or more.

In a controversial break from the Senate proposal, the House bill mandates that group plans "include benefits" for any condition contained in the American Psychiatric Assn.'s most recent reference guide for diagnosing mental ailments, called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM. The manual lists serious conditions -- like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and severe depression -- but also includes jet lag, caffeine addiction and sibling rivalry. Employers and insurance groups are quick to criticize the House bill for that provision, saying it will drive up costs and force employers to drop mental health coverage altogether.

"Nowhere else do you employ a professional manual to specify the conditions that have to be covered," said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation and leader of an ad hoc industry coalition lobbying the bill. "The practical effect is to require each and every thing in the DSM to be potentially subject to coverage."

The Senate proposal, in contrast, caters more to businesses, allowing the plans -- not the DSM -- to define their scope of coverage. Under both bills, however, insurers would pay only for those conditions they deem medically necessary. Supporters of the House bill contend that the medical necessity limitation makes much of the DSM criticism unjustified. Neither bill mandates mental health coverage. Yet business groups worry that the House language would drive coverage decisions into the courts.

"The issue is, how is the language in the House bill interpreted?" said Mohit Ghose, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. "What is the definition of medical necessity?"

As is often the case with congressional proposals, the debate hinges more on how the bill is perceived than on what it would do. Peter Newbould, director of congressional and political affairs at the American Psychological Assn., said the DSM provision doesn't deserve the scrutiny it's received.

"It's something that conservative senators latch on to -- perhaps supported by business and insurers -- and say, 'No, that's too much,'" Newbould said. "The problem is not the reality, it's the perception."

Newbould added, "Whether or not the DSM language is problematic misses the point that it's DOA in the Senate."

The White House has bolstered this Republican opposition. The administration issued a statement in March charging that the House bill "would effectively mandate coverage of a broad range of diseases and conditions and would have a negative effect on the accessibility and affordability of employer-provided health benefits."

Recognizing the political realities, Senate negotiators -- including Democrats -- have accepted the industry's compromise for the sake of passing reforms this year. Kennedy and Domenici have sent a newer version of their bill to House leaders. That bill moves closer to the House proposal but does not contain the DSM language. The question remains whether House leaders will accept the changes or hold out for a more patient-friendly bill.

All sides agree that time is short. With a new administration taking the helm next year, health care reform is expected to be among the top priorities of the new White House. Mental health advocates fear that the parity issue might lose priority in the shuffle.

"Time is of the essence," Newbould said. "If nothing gets done [this year], we'll get lost in the health care tornado that's soon coming in."

House to Cave on Wiretapping Bill?

Mike Lillis — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:18:13 GMT

After stealing headlines earlier in the year, the showdown between the White House and House Democrats over the renewal of controversial domestic spying legislation has faded from public debate. (In a nutshell, the administration wants to protect the phone companies from lawsuits for their role in providing the government with client information without judicial oversight -- something the Senate approved but the House has thus far rejected.)

But now comes word from the American Civil Liberties Union that House Democrats may be crafting a deal with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) to move a compromise bill. Rockefeller was one of the most vocal supporters of retroactive immunity for phone companies, which leaves groups like the ACLU spooked that any deal pushed by the West Virginian would include such a provision.

ACLU is already beating its drum of disapproval:

Make no mistake: any "compromise" that is acceptable to Senator Rockefeller and the President will undoubtedly let lawbreakers off the hook and seriously put at risk -- or even end -- lawsuits that may be the only way to get to the bottom of crimes that were committed by phone companies and Bush administration officials.

ACLU is urging its members to urge House leaders not to cave. And you thought it was safe to get back on the phone.