This may sound like a funny thing to note two weeks after the fact, but in all the wreckage of November 2nd and the distractions of packing and proposal writing I neglected to mark the anniversary of this site, which fell on November 12th. (You can see the site's first post here.)
That's four years of writing Talking Points Memo.
Let me extend a very sincere and heartfelt note of appreciation to the readers of this site for making it possible for me to do this. Not only could this site not exist without its readers (that goes for every publication), but writing it would simply be impossible (and that's far from true for every publication) since so many ideas and connections and factoids and insights come in from readers' emails. If you haven't written a blog, I'm not sure it's possible to realize just how true that is.
I love magazine writing. But it's very much a solitary and uni-directional process. And this is far from that. It's not like letters-to-the-editor; it's an integral part of how the site gets put together. You honor me when you stop by; and for that I am truly thankful.
Let me also thank Henry Copeland, Zander Dryer, Larry Glenn, Avi Zenilman and others who'll remain nameless who've helped me, in various and innumerable ways, to put this site together.
--Josh Marshall
For you hardcore DeLay Rule obsessives out there whose thirst isn't slaked even by TPM, here's a new interactive and all-bells-and-whistle-ified database of how everyone voted, or didn't vote. It was put together in coordination with the folks at The Daily DeLay.
And here's a fun story from the Albany Times-Union on the quest of a few hardy TPM readers trying to find out how their congressman, John Sweeney, came down on the DeLay Rule. Sweeney spokesman Demetrios Karoutsos told the Times-Union that the "vast majority" of callers were satisfied with Sweeney's status as a letter-writer. Those who weren't, he said, "obviously had other motives."
It's like I always say. Those Upstate Republicans, they play rough.
--Josh Marshall
Another Connecticut Republican gets the shaft from Rep. Istook: this time, eastern Connecticut's Rob Simmons.
The issue is transportation funding for Simmons' district. And I was going to say he got the pork shaft. But I quickly realized that that might give the metaphor an awkward tilt -- particularly, I would imagine, for Rep. Istook. So I thought better of it.
Back to the topic at hand ...
There is no constitutional right to appropriations pork. So, aside from tweaking folks a bit, you can't exactly claim that there's an issue of high principle here. But I am curious to know more about the nitty-gritty dynamics of what happened here (see this earlier post for details.) Is this another sign of House majority hubris? Perhaps one more telling and significant than the DeLay Rule or the Istook Amendment?
Here's what I mean. The GOP congressional majority rests on its dominance in the reddest of the red states -- particularly, in the South. But it can't survive without healthy representation in every region -- even in the Northeast, perhaps especially there, since it's there that the balance is hardest to pull off.
Back in the Gingrich era I remember often being surprised at how good Gingrich's relations were with many of the moderates. For all his bluster, he understood the importance of finding ways to help the bluer sort of Republican survive in parts of the country that were very different from the GOP's southern heartland.
I don't know the internal dynamics of the House or the GOP caucus well enough to know. And perhaps this is just an Istook story, aberrational rather than representative. But it makes me wonder if House Republicans are now feeling confident enough of their majority that they don't feel the need to cultivate or protect colleagues like these with whom, in truth, they have little in common.
The fact that Istook meted out this punishment over a disagreement about the regionally-tinged issue of funding Amtrak -- a spending priority which is rather more dear in the Northeast than in Oklahoma -- adds to my curiosity.
--Josh Marshall
The pity of it all. These northeastern <$NoAd$>moderates like Boehlert and McHugh and Gerlach gave the thumbs up to the DeLay Rule. But that didn't stop them from getting thrown down under the tracks a couple days later by another one of Ernie Istook's last-minute appropriations surprises.
We pick the story up in The Hill ...
Deep in the transportation section of this year’s omnibus spending bill, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) dispensed a little appropriator’s justice, punishing 21 Republicans who wrote him a letter in support of $1.8 billion for Amtrak....
Istook’s anti-Amtrak retribution hit several of the Republican majority’s most vulnerable members, including Reps. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) and Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), two Northeastern centrists who won tight races, in part, by convincing constituents of their ability to bring home road money.
The affected lawmakers did not learn of Istook’s drastic action until last Saturday, when the bill was passed. Several of them contacted Republican leaders to inquire if they knew of Istook’s punitive action and were told that party leaders were unaware that Istook was harming vulnerable members.
In addition to Gerlach and Simmons, Reps. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) were said to be particularly outraged at Istook’s actions, according several committee sources. Upon learning that his projects were cut, McHugh came close to physical blows with Istook, according to some accounts.
Simmons got hosed too, of course. But at least he kept his dignity intact on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Here are the last two grafs in <$NoAd$>a piece on the Istook Amendment in Wednesday's Post ...
Doubts remained yesterday over exactly how the controversial tax-return provision -- which allows Appropriations Committee chairmen or their "agents" access to Internal Revenue Service facilities or "any tax returns or return information contained therein" -- got into the omnibus spending bill late last week. House Republicans blamed committee staff aides and the IRS.Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the IRS, denied any role. Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who had referred to the proposal as the "Istook amendment" Saturday, issued a statement expressing regret for "any confusion my earlier remarks may have created."
Are we allowed to comment on how ridiculous this is?
Four days later and they can't figure out who put the thing in the bill? Just some aides, but it's not clear which ones or who they worked for, and someone at the IRS and maybe they handwrote a note and dropped it off at Rayburn and somehow it got into the bill.
Really, give me a break. Give all of us a break. This isn't Schrodinger's cat we're talking about. This wasn't the work of subatomic particles. Which aides? At whose direction were they working? And which IRS employee and what were they asked to write? Presumably it shouldn't hard to find out the identity of the IRS employee. Just ask the mystery staffer since that he or she asked them to write it.
Silliness.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Stevens (R-AK) has the handwritten note (from the Fairbanks News-Miner): "Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday showed reporters a handwritten legislative proposal from an IRS employee that slipped into and nearly stopped the massive appropriations bill passed by Congress this weekend. Stevens said the note proves that neither he nor any other Republican had crafted the potentially privacy-invading language."
--Josh Marshall
Okay, this one's an original. We heard <$Ad$>from a reader this morning who told us that Rep. Rick Renzi's (R-AZ) office is telling constituents that he didn't get a chance to vote on the DeLay Rule because he's not a member of the Republican House Conference.
(Subsequently, we learned that another emailer got the same story.)
The TPM reader thought that sounded odd. But apparently the staffer was insistent. And it sounded awfully odd to me too since I thought every Republican member of the House is by definition a member of the Republican House Conference, just like every Dem is a member of the Democratic Caucus. (Sorta like every Major League Baseball team in the American league is also a member of the American League.)
So I dropped a note to a House GOP staffer friend of mine; and when he said that was his decided impression too, I felt that something might be seriously amiss. So I rung up Renzi's office and asked to speak with the staffer the TPM reader had spoken to.
I asked the guy if it was true that Rep. Renzi really wasn't a member of the House Republican Conference and whether the office was telling constituents that this was why he couldn't vote on the DeLay Rule.
First I heard a disbelieving guffaw. But when I said we'd heard this from more than one person and that they'd spoken to him specifically, the mood changed perceptively and shifted to some awkward discussion of someone possibly having mispoken and something and the other and various other somethings and others and ...
We didn't talk much longer than that.
But while I still don't know how Rep. Renzi voted on the DeLay Rule, I think we're clear that he is a member of the House Republican Conference. So that's some progress.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Frist issues a formal apology ... to Ernest Istook.
STATEMENT FROM MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST: "I have spoken with Congressman Istook and he assures me that his office is not responsible for inclusion of the IRS provision into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, the so-called omnibus bill. I regret any confusion my earlier remarks may have created."
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh the trials of rising in the House ranks and securing a prized chairmanship: toeing the party line, schmoozing the right lobbyists, raising money for the party, campaigning for other members, raising money for the Majority Leader's Legal Defense Fund.
--Josh Marshall
Wistful for the Handful?
Chris Shays tells the Hartford Courant that he regrets not calling for a recorded vote on the DeLay Rule ...
Shays actually spoke twice - only three others spoke at all - and said Friday he wished he had sought a secret ballot vote, particularly after DeLay boasted how overwhelming his support had been."I thought I had done my job at the time. Things happen quickly," Shays explained. "We might have gotten 50 votes. We might have gotten 80 votes."
Ah coulda beena contenda ...
--Josh Marshall
We're hearing the first word of some payback in the air for the folks in the Shays Handful -- meted out in ye olde-fashioned currency of committee assignments.
In fact, maybe even payback for some folks who didn't denounce the Handful enough.
We'll keep you posted.
--Josh Marshall
Here's another story to keep an eye on.
On election day, one of the most powerful legislators in the Texas House of Representatives, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Talmadge Heflin (R-Houston) got beat by a Vietnamese American businessman named Hubert Vo (D).
It was awfully close -- 32 votes. And it was also the first Democratic gain in the Texas state House in 32 years. (They've had a string of rough decades.)
With such a narrow margin, Heflin is understandably calling for a manual recount, which he's just officially requested.
But more than that seems to be afoot.
Speaker Tom Craddick -- the guy who handled the DeLay redistricting power grab last year -- has made all sorts of noise that he's cutting Heflin loose. He even reassigned his plum Appropriations Committee chairmanship. At the same time, the Texas Republicans' hotshot election lawyer Andy Taylor -- the guy who handled the redistricting business for Craddick and DeLay -- is representing Heflin and tossing around charges of voter fraud.
Taylor's presence makes Democrats understandably suspicious about whether Craddick and Co. have really given up on the thought of trying to seat Heflin by any means necessary.
And here's how they'd do it.
Under Texas law, in addition to asking for a recount, Heflin can challenge the validity of the election by filing an official challenge with the secretary of state. Based on that challenge Speaker Craddick would appoint a member of the House as a "special master" to investigate the election. If that 'investigation' finds irregularities and fraud, as Andy Taylor is already alleging, they order that a new election be held -- effectively invalidating the results of the election.
Needless to say, the Texas state House is now in Republican hands. So what all of that means is that Tom DeLay's local sub-boss, Speaker Craddick, gets to decide whether Hubert Vo's election gets tossed out on the basis of spurious charges of 'irregularities' and 'voter fraud.'
Of course, these are just the things Craddick could do if he chose. For Craddick and DeLay and the rest of them to actually try pulling this off would be amazingly bold and brazen.
But, then, look who we're talking about ...
--Josh Marshall
This guy has sharp elbows too.
Travis County DA Ronnie Earle in the Times: "The thinly veiled personal attacks on me by Mr. DeLay's supporters in this case are no different from those in the cases of any of the 15 elected officials this office has prosecuted in my 27-year tenure."
And a line that might serve well as a choice quote just below the title on the first page of some future biography of Tom DeLay: "There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules."
--Josh Marshall
For the moment, set aside the civil liberties and privacy issues raised by the Istook Amendment. What does it say about the majority's management of the legislative process in Congress at present that it's been two and half days since this line item was discovered and no one has been able to determine who wrote it or who put it in the bill?
--Josh Marshall
Tom DeLay on the Istook Amendment: "Frankly, the media is making a lot out of nothing. I did not know it was in the bill. My staff usually catches these kinds of things, but it was one sentence and we missed it."
--Josh Marshall
The Times has a brief piece on the Istook Amendment. But they hit on the key point early, if a tad obliquely: Rep. Istook changed his story from Sunday to Monday.
On Sunday Istook explained that the tax-snooping language was basically innocuous. But, as the Times notes, he made no attempt to deny his responsibility for the language in the bill, even though the claim that he was behind the provision had been included in numerous press accounts.
Only on Monday did he make any claim that he wasn't involved at all.
--Josh Marshall
We're getting reports from all over the district. Letter-writer Frank R. Wolf of Virginia has sent the letter. He's in the Handful.
--Josh Marshall
So much for states-rights and federalism.
From the Post: "Also included in [i.e., slipped in furtively into] the final [omnibus spending] bill was a major provision barring states from enforcing laws that require health care providers, hospitals, HMOs or insurers to pay for, provide or give referrals for abortion."
California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York -- none of them can make their own reproductive rights policy.
More here from Ms. Magazine.
--Josh Marshall
The LPFKI hits the bigs -- above the fold in tomorrow's Post.
Icy rain and sleet also reported in South Hades.
--Josh Marshall
One of the fringe benefits of the DeLay Rule brouhaha is that it has exposed the sheer level of disorganization, absenteeism and management deficiency that seems to prevail in the 230+ offices that make up the House Republican caucus. Again and again, TPM-reader-constituents would tell us that for days on end staffers were unable to make contact with their given representative. In other cases, messages to contact him or her to find out their vote on the DeLay Rule would again and again go missing. Equally troubling, in many offices the staffer authorized to comment on the DeLay Rule would be 'away from his/her desk' or 'at lunch' for days on end.
One of the most serious cases appears to be the office of Rep. John Sweeney from Upstate New York.
On Thursday afternoon, reader Chris S. told us: "I called the congressman's office this morning and the staffer said he did not know how the congressman voted. I just got off the phone again and was told that the congressman had been in meetings all day and he didn't yet have an answer for me. When he does, I'll let you know."
Early the next morning, though, things seemed little better, according to reader Jeff C.: "Just called Rep. Sweeney's office (NYState) and after being put on hold for 2 mins, told the staffer that normally handles that question is out and will call back." A short time later, Donald Z. did little better: "I was told that the DeLay rule was a closed vote and that no one has had the opportunity to ask the Congressman how he voted. They took my address and said that the office would respond by mail."
By late Friday morning it seemed Rep. Sweeney was nowhere to be found. Brucie R., who had first called Thursday, followed up with his Friday efforts: "I called John Sweeney's (NY-20) office again this morning at 9am. Left an answering machine message and said I'd call again. Did so at 9:30am, asked for Ian, the person I've been talking to, and Ian said that Sweeney was out all day yesterday so that's why he doesn't know yet how he voted, but that he should have an answer 'in a couple hours' -- said he should know 'early afternoon.'" A few hours later a female Sweeney staffer told Bruce: "None of us here know. The Congressman has been busy with the omnibus bill. Ian doesn't know yet either. None of us know. That's what we're telling everyone. Should we call you when we know?" And then before the end of the day Brucie tried one more time: ""We still don't know. We're trying to find out. We have a long list of people to call when we find out."
By the end of the day Friday we could see a definite pattern developing. And our impression got some confirmation when Jon St. gave us a wrap-up of his efforts on Saturday ...
I live in Sweeney's district, and emailed him a couple of days ago asking about his vote on the DeLay Rule. I have received no response. I called the Washington office yesterday morning and was told, after a bit of delay, that "the person who can answer that question for you is out of the office, and we don't expect her back until late afternoon." I called again late yesterday afternoon. It was clear that by that time they had gotten a few calls on the matter, and had a pat answer. They told me (my paraphrase), "We don't know how he voted at this point. He was in a closed voting session all day and we haven't been able to ask him about it yet. Please provide your name, address, and telephone number, and we'll call you as soon as we know." I did provide my contact information, but haven't heard a peep.
By today a few constituents were actually starting to grow worried. TPM reader Casey M. called repeatedly last week and today she wrote in with a rough recitation of how one of her calls went today. We join the call in progress after a Sweeney staffer tells Casey that they still haven't seen Rep. Sweeney ...
Me: Nobody has seen him? Aren't you getting concerned about him? You must be ready to notify police if no one has seen or spoken to him in what, four or five days now?[staffer]: Well, I don't have an answer for you Casey.
Me: Why is that [staffer]?
[staffer]: I don't know, I just don't have an answer. Can you hold?
Me: Sure. (( crickets ))
[staffer]: Cathy?
Me: No, it's Casey.
[staffer]: Oh, sorry, Casey, I'm going to put you into The Chief of Staff's voicemail and he can get back to you on this.
Me: [staffer], why is so difficult to get an answer to a simple yes or no question after five days do you think. I mean, we are through the omnibus bill for now, and that was the reason you gave me last time we spoke. Why is this hard do you suppose?
[staffer]: (getting annoyed now). I don't know Casey but I am going to put you into [CoS's] voice mail and you can talk to him.
Me: Okay.[CoS] voicemail: Hi this is [CoS]. I will be out of the office from Nov. 22 through Nov. 26th. Please leave me a message....[blah, blah, blah]
-------Hmmmmmm. Time to call [staffer] back. I call [staffer] back and I am put into her voice mail. I call [staffer] back and speak to [staffer #2]. I tell [staffer #2] that I am trying to call [staffer #1] back because she put me into [CoS's] voicemail and I need to get an answer
On hold: trying to transfer. Wow, I got cutoff!! Calling again, I ask to talk to [staffer #1] ... please put me on hold....oops, after three minutes on hold they put me back into [CoS's] voicemail. Oh dear, time to call back. Hi, is [staffer #1] there? I don't mind holding...What [staffer #1] stepped away from her desk? You know, I just called and she was on her phone, and I'm starting to think she's avoiding me....Sure, I can hold ..[wating for four or five minutes...] Casey, it's [CoS], I'll have an answer for you in a minute.Me: Oh okay [CoS], thanks.
So here's the upshot. They called [CoS] on vacation in [vacation place] to get an answer an make sure it was okay to give out that answer. From the staff, it's a yes. Not so much loud and proud, as whispering from a distance. Say, from-Seattle-type distance.
Now it was their turn to question me....how do I feel about the matter. I told them, blah, blah, blah, and then debated the staff into a corner and got bored and said I had to go wash my socks. Okay, I made up the socks part, but my three year old conveniently started begging for popcorn, and Motherhood calls.
So that's the story.
We hear some local media may be reporting soon that Sweeney's a DeLay Rule man. We'll let you know when we hear more.
--Josh Marshall
Still loud, still proud and still in the Shays Handful.
Arizona's J.D. Hayworth wrote a letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic yesterday ("Board's brush a little too broad") in which he praises their denunciation of the DeLay Rule but takes exception to their "broad-brush approach."
"In the interest of fairness and full disclosure," wrote Hayworth, "I am writing to inform you and Republic readers that when Republicans met in conference last week to discuss the rules change, I spoke passionately in opposition to the proposal, voted against it, and voted against the final package of rules that included the change."
--Josh Marshall
As we noted earlier, the latest story seems to be that Rep. Istook not only claims that the LPFKI was drafted by IRS personnel but that neither he nor his staff were the ones who asked them to write it.
Late this afternoon TPM spoke to IRS spokesman Terry Lemons, who provided us with the following statement: "The Commissioner [Mark W. Everson] was unaware of this provision until after it was already approved. He strongly supports the measure being deleted from the final bill."
Lemons said the IRS had commenced an internal inquiry into the origin of the provision at the behest of Sen. Kent Conrad.
Now, earlier this afternoon a TPM reader wrote in to say that he found it unlikely that Appropriations Committee staffers would not be aware of the sensitivity attached to tax return confidentiality or the fact that the plain language of the LPFKI (as per this afternoon's post, this is our acronym for the Legislative Provision Formerly Known as Istook) gives the chairs of the appropriations committees carte blanche to review them.
More to the point, though, he found it extremely implausible that IRS personnel would draft the language in the way that they allegedly did unless they were given specific guidance to do draft it in such an expansive fashion -- and perhaps not even then.
I quote from the reader's email, where he notes the basis of his skepticism ...
This is not because the IRS are good guys but because it would very strongly go against their bureaucratic interest. First of all it is a giveaway of power -- one does not draft something to give away more of one's exclusive power than absolutely necessary; and this is an exclusive right that the IRS has on a very important and indeed explosive subject. It's the IRS's official position that the assurance of confidentiality is critical to keeping taxpayers honest in filing returns. The tax system, as has often been pointed out (most notably by Justice Robert Jackson) relies almost entirely on voluntary compliance. Once the word got out that your tax returns might be inspected by Congress, many people would not want to be honest, and, more importantly, many more would use that as an excuse not to be honest.
I'm no expert on the IRS. But I do know a bit about Washington bureaucracies. And what this TPMer says at least sounds on the mark to me. It seems quite unlikely that an IRS staff attorney, asked simply to provide language authorizing senior appropriations committee staffers to conduct visits to IRS facilities in the course of their oversight duties, would produce language of such breadth.
But that's what Rep. Istook says. But then, how would he know, since he says he didn't have anything to do with asking them to write it?
--Josh Marshall
Breaking News !!!
We seem to have our first case of a TPM-reader-constituent who's represented in Congress by a DeLay Rule letter-writer and has now received his letter.
Further updates as the story develops ...
--Josh Marshall
Iowa DeLay Rule follow-up!
This morning Rep. Jim Leach's office confirmed directly to TPM that the congressman does in fact reside in the Shays Handful. The Des Moines Register, meanwhile, confirmed the same about Reps. Leach, Nussle and Latham -- as TPM readers had earlier reported.
Only Rep. Steve King, formerly a letter-writer, turned out to be a DeLay Rule man.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm. Exit polls showed opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko heading toward victory in Ukraine over current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. But now that the official results are in, Yanukovych holds what the Post calls an " insurmountable three point lead."
Says the Post: "Tens of thousands of people flooded Independence Square in the capital Monday amid calls for a general strike or even the kind of revolution that toppled regimes in Serbia and Georgia after suspect elections."
--Josh Marshall
Okay, now for the trivial but funny.
The standard line, true or not, is that grand juries are such pushovers that a good DA can get an indictment against a ham sandwich.
But a TPM reader (SL) points out that in his comments in defense of Tom DeLay to the Anniston Star on Thursday, Rep. Mike Rogers seems to be arguing that the problem is actually rogue ham sandwiches securing indictments against well-meaning politicians like Rep. DeLay.
As we noted earlier, but without apprehending their full comedic value, Rogers told the Star, "I’m an attorney, and any attorney knows you can get an indictment with a ham sandwich. We’re trying to raise the standard, to make it so that you don’t allow what is purely a political indictment to make someone step aside from a leadership role."
Does Ronnie Earle have a ham sandwich with Tom DeLay's name on it?
--Josh Marshall
I'm a little confused about the <$Ad$>current explanation of the origins of the Legislative Provision Formerly Known as Istook (LPFKI).
Sen. Frist originally said it was inserted by Rep. Istook. The Times reported yesterday that Istook "was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation."
And in his statement yesterday Istook appeared to concede this, while asserting that the actual language was drafted by personnel from the IRS.
Today, however, Rep. Istook seems to be saying that he had no involvement in the matter whatsoever. From his statement this morning ...
"I want to reiterate what I said on Sunday, namely that this was not my language. I then spent most of the day tracking down what happened."I had nothing to do with inserting this language. I never knew what was happening until it was done. Had I known, I would have intervened to omit or to fix this provision.
"I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted. My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed."
Now, I'm not trying to be nettlesome or willfully dense. But even if we take as granted the basic outlines of the current account (namely, that Appropriations committee staffers wanted some language empowering oversight and folks at IRS wrote it too broadly), something seems missing.
Somone on the committee wanted more oversight power or wanted that power more clearly defined in legislation and asked the IRS for the appropriate language. Was that not Istook or one of his staffers?
In his statement Istook seems to suggest [but murkily] that "appropriations [committee] staff" had the language put in and that he, as chairman of the relevant subcommittee was "bypassed."
If he and his staff had nothing to do with it, who did exactly? And what did they tell the folks at the IRS that they wanted? Because clearly the language is specifically written to allow inspection of tax returns without reference to existing privacy laws.
Is the LPFKI really not tied to Rep. Istook in any way?
And isn't it about time someone talked to whomever at the IRS provided the language?
--Josh Marshall
Absolutely, positively, totally completely nuthin' to do with me<$NoAd$>.
Rep. Istook takes another bite at the apple in a statement released this morning ...
Further Statement by Istook Regarding Mistaken Claims About Provision in Omnibus Spending BillWashington, DC - Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK), chairman of the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee made the following statements Monday morning in reaction to mistaken claims that he included a controversial provision regarding the IRS in the omnibus spending bill.
"I want to reiterate what I said on Sunday, namely that this was not my language. I then spent most of the day tracking down what happened.
"I had nothing to do with inserting this language. I never knew what was happening until it was done. Had I known, I would have intervened to omit or to fix this provision.
"I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted. My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed."
"We have a problem with how bills like this are put together. On occasions, appropriations staff will take the initiative to insert language they believe will be non-controversial. They do this with the approval of full committee staff, but without the knowledge or approval of subcommittee chairman like me. That is what happened in this case.
"We have a chain of command problem over whether the subcommittee staff are ultimately accountable to the full committee staff-who represent the full committee chairman-or to the subcommittee chairman. The subcommittee chairman should never be bypassed like I was in this case. I will work to fix this as part of the reorganization of the appropriations committee that will take place during the next several weeks.
"I'm satisfied that nobody intended to breach or to weaken the privacy laws that protect people's tax returns. But good intentions are no guarantee of good results."
"Our committee has responsibility for the IRS budget. That includes its personnel, facilities and equipment. This language wasn't sufficiently reviewed because it was drafted by the IRS, so our staff presumed that it was okay. The IRS drafted this language at staff request, in an effort to make it clear that our oversight duties include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers-but NOT inspecting tax returns. That was also made clear on the House floor when the omnibus bill was brought up.
"Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized. Honest mistakes were made, but there's no conspiracy."
So just an honest attempt to protect tax payer privacy gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Late Update: The text of the statement is now posted on Rep. Istook's website.
--Josh Marshall
Alabama's Mike Rogers, a DeLay Rule man, tells the local paper, the Anniston Star, that the DeLay Rule was an effort to "raise the standard."
"You have to look at protecting the institution,” Rep. Rogers told the paper on Thursday. "I’m an attorney, and any attorney knows you can get an indictment with a ham sandwich. We’re trying to raise the standard, to make it so that you don’t allow what is purely a political indictment to make someone step aside from a leadership role."
Protecting the institution.
Meanwhile, we now have Indiana Rep. Mark Souder down as a confirmed DeLay Rule man.
--Josh Marshall
No DeLay indictment after all?
CBS's David Paul Kuhn quotes "an official involved in the investigation" as saying he thinks a DeLay indictment is unlikely and that DeLay's lawyers already know that.
Material further down in the article suggests that while DeLay was "kept aware" of illegal activities being committed on his behalf that the investigators have not been able to uncover evidence that DeLay "acted to promote" the illegal activity and they haven't been able to uncover sufficient evidence of that.
This does raise an interesting question. DeLay may be a crook, but he's no fool. If he and his lawyers had any confidence he wasn't going to be indicted I find it hard to believe they would have gone to the trouble of such a self-inflicted black-eye as the DeLay Rule predictably turned out to be.
--Josh Marshall
I confess I'd been skeptical. But it seems now that Congress may actually have perfected the self-writing conference committee provision. (I'm told the CIA had been testing the technology for some time; but go-getters at the Pentagon decided to press it in to actual service.) According to CNN, Rep. Istook's deputy chief of staff Micah Leydorf says that neither he nor Istook had even seen the provision. Rather, it was added at the full committee level.
That would be somewhat in contrast to Sen. Frist's statement that Rep. Istook had the language inserted in the bill as well as what at least seemed like Rep. Istook's admission that he had had the language inserted.
Meanwhile, Rep. Istook wants all you privacy girlie-men to calm down about the whole thing: "It may get the media's attention when someone makes a wild claim, but it's time for everyone to calm down. There's no conspiracy here."
--Josh Marshall
Reconciling ourselves to reconciliation <$NoAd$>(from a series last month in the Boston Globe) ...
Congressional conference committees, charged with reconciling differences between House- and Senate-passed versions of the same legislation, have become dramatically more powerful in shaping bills. The panels, made up of a small group of lawmakers appointed by leaders in both parties, added a record 3,407 "pork barrel" projects to appropriations bills for this year's federal budget, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret. This compares to just 47 projects added in conference committee in 1994, the last year of Democratic control....
Lawmakers say they are still finding items in the Medicare package that passed last winter that they find objectionable, such as the financial penalty on seniors who wait to sign up for the Medicare prescription drug plan.
"There was no way that every member of Congress could hold up their right hand and say, `I read every page of that bill before the vote,' " said Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, noting that members had just one day to examine the 400-plus-page bill before voting on a law that would change health-care allotments across the country.
This whole article, by the Globe's Susan Milligan, and the whole series, are really worth reading.
--Josh Marshall
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. And to that end I call your attention to the Campaign for America's Future (CAF) website and their list of political giving by Tom DeLay's leadership PAC, ARMPAC. (For some reason, whenever I write that name, I can't help but thinking 'armpit'. But perhaps that's my bias speaking.) The list is quite helpful in understanding the vote on the DeLay Rule, particularly up at the higher reaches where we find Rep. Mike Ferguson (#1) pulling down over $42,000 or Minnesota's John Kline (#10) raking in over $30,000.
But hop over to the list and scroll all the way down and you'll see a non-trivial number of reps. who got $20 or $14 or -- humiliation of humiliations! -- $6 from the Bugman.
Now, unfortunately, I suspect there must be some quite mundane explanation for these micro-payments. But such an explanations don't satisfy my curiosity. Some readers wondered too. "Of course, you have to wonder how that $20 was exchanged. Almost like a tip on the way out the door or something," one reader wrote.
And I'm thinking this may be right. Perhaps a tip? Or a generous payment for a shoe-shine? Or maybe like some congressional version of that weird thing your grandpa used to do just before you left when he'd put your hand in his and then suddenly that one dollar bill he'd furtively placed in his hand was in yours?
--Josh Marshall
Okay, let's try this one more time.
From <$NoAd$>the Associated Press on Rep. Istook's statement ...
Istook, chairman of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said in a statement Sunday that the Internal Revenue Service drafted the language, which would not have allowed any inspections of tax returns. "Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized," the statement said.
The actual text Rep. Istook inserted into the bill ...
Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.
Abuse of power or poor reading comprehension? We report; you decide.
[ed. note: Emphasis added in above quotes. Special thanks to TPM reader DC.]
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Istook says it's all a big misunderstanding (from the Times)
Representative Ernest Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, who was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation that provides financing for most of the government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized." Mr. Istook is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has authority over the I.R.S. budget.John D. Scofield, the spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said that the purpose of the provision was to allow investigators for the top lawmakers responsible for financing the I.R.S. to have access to that agency's offices around the country and tax records so they could examine how the money was being spent. There was never any desire to look at anyone's tax returns, he said.
Mr. Scofield said the only purpose of the provision was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices. He said the authority would be similar to that allowed senior members and staff assistants of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, the panels with primary jurisdiction over the activities of the revenue service.
...
Mr. Scofield, the spokesman for the House committee, called the entire matter "a tempest in a teapot" and said Mr. Istook and his colleagues had no objection to the removal of the authority.
"We don't really care," Mr. Scofield said Sunday in an interview. "It was an honest attempt to do oversight. If they want to take it out, fine."
Mr. Scofield said he found it strange that senators felt they were taken by surprise. He noted that the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Bill Young, Republican of Florida, had discussed it briefly on the House floor, and that the language had been available since Thursday for Senate staff members to read.
Similar, just without any privacy <$NoAd$>laws applying.
--Josh Marshall
Two stories ...
First, from Saturday night's <$NoAd$> article in the Associated Press ...
"There will be no window where this will be law," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said. He referred to the provision as the Istook amendment, and congressional aides said it was put in the bill at the request of Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee.
Then this morning on Face The Nation ...
SCHIEFFER: Should someone who put that in the bill be fired, Senator?Sen. FRIST: No. Oh, I have no earthly idea how it got there.
SCHIEFFER: Do you even know who put it in the bill?
Sen. FRIST: I personally don't know but obviously somebody's going to know and accountability will be carried out. It was wrong. Everybody says--nobody's going to defend this. I wouldn't even spend any more time on it. It was fixed.
Forgetful.
And finally Sen. Hutchison on Wolf's show ...
Wolf, if I could, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that that clause that was inserted about IRS documents or people's tax returns being able to be gotten to by any member of Congress or any staff -- can't be blamed on the right wing. That's totally inappropriate. I don't think we know how that got in, and I can't -- it's not fair to put blame. It's just not fair.
Not fair I tell you!
--Josh Marshall
CNN headlines with the Istook-snooping imbroglio.
But oddly enough they make no mention of Rep. Istook.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Ernest Istook may have put the tax-return-snooping language in the appropriations bill. But on the other hand he's part of the Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton.
So I guess he can't be all bad.
--Josh Marshall
Pennsylvania's Todd Platts is telling constituents he's in the Shays Handful.
--Josh Marshall
It's worth noting that the "Istook Amendment" (see the last post about the technical issue of whether it's an 'amendment' or a 'provision') was discovered in the appropriations bill by a staffer for North Dakota's Kent Conrad. And Conrad is right at the top of the list of senators the GOP is going to try to knock out in 2006.
That, presumably, will clear the way for other middle-of-the-night Istook Amendments.
--Josh Marshall
Could this be what he's after?
A reader points out that what we're referring to as the "Istook Amendment" doesn't sound like an 'amendment', properly speaking. If I understand what happened correctly, this was language slipped during reconciliation. The phrase comes from the AP article quoting Sen. Bill Frist. And I don't know whether Frist misspoke or the AP misquoted him.
In any case, this language raises an interesting point and may give us some indication of what Rep. Istook was after.
If you do a Google search for "Istook Amendment" you'll get quite a number of hits. There've been at least two Istook Amendments before this one. But the phrase is most commonly associated with an amendment Istook tried to get attached to a number of bills in the mid-90s that would have placed tough restrictions on political advocacy by tax exempt organizations that receive federal funds.
Here's an example that illustrates the issue -- and I preface this with a warning that I'm sure I'll be oversimplifying or getting some nuances of the issue wrong.
Planned Parenthood may receive a federal grant for, say, doing an STD awareness program or doing free STD testing in low income areas. Planned Parenthood also does public advocacy on behalf of birth control and sex ed. and abortion rights. The federal grant is dedicated specifically at that one program while the advocacy work is funded by foundation grants or private contributions or whatever.
Istook would say, all money's fungible. So same difference. The federal government is actually funding Planned Parenthood's lobbying on behalf of reproductive rights.
Let's set aside for the moment whether his argument makes sense. If you were really interested in this issue -- as Istook clearly is -- you'd be very interested in seeing the tax returns of the organizations in question to see if they're really segregating the money as they say they are.
So maybe that's what this was all about. That's just speculation, of course. But there was clearly some motive behind this. The language in the provision is too specific and carefully crafted to admit of any 'accident' explanation.
--Josh Marshall
Notta lotta attention.
As near <$Ad$>as I can tell, there's only one article (by Matt Yancey of the AP) that's appeared so far devoted to the Istook Amendment, the provision in the new omnibus spending bill which would allow the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to review the tax return of any individual, business or organization in the country with no privacy protections whatsoever.
Yes, there are a few references to it here and there in other pieces, but only one on that topic specifically and only one that refers to its apparent author.
On the other hand, here's an exchange on the matter between Tim Russert and John McCain this morning on Meet The Press ...
MR. RUSSERT: In the House version of this spending bill, there was a provision which said that the Appropriations Committee should have access to taxpayers' tax returns. How did that happen?SEN. McCAIN: What happens here is that they slap these omnibus bills together--as you mentioned, this one's nine bills that we should have passed separately--nobody sees them or reads them. It was a 1,630- page document yesterday that was presented to us sometime in the morning, and we voted on it in the evening. The system is broken, and everybody, of course, wanted to get out of town, understandably.
MR. RUSSERT: Why should Congress have access to citizens' tax returns?
SEN. McCAIN: According to--Senator Stevens' explanation on the floor last night was that two staffers put in this provision and no one knew about it until another Senator Conrad staffer discovered it.
MR. RUSSERT: What was their motive?
SEN. McCAIN: That should--you know, I don't know. I can't imagine. But the fact that our system is such that that would ever be inserted and passed by the House of Representatives--if there's ever a graphic example of the broken system that we now have, that certainly has to be it.
MR. RUSSERT: House...
SEN. McCAIN: How many other provisions didn't we find in that 1,600-page bill?
MR. RUSSERT: That provision won't become law ever.
SEN. McCAIN: No. No. No. We worked out a procedure where the House--it doesn't matter but it'll be fixed, but the fact that it got in there in the first place is chilling.
Two points.
First, can someone ask Rep. Istook about this?
Second, it's a huge problem that these bills get voted through without most of the Senators and Representatives (or their staffers or relevant committee staffers) ever knowing all the provisions in the them. In most cases, the offending line items and provisions are pork barrel spending projects and special breaks for favored interests and constituents. But as big a problem as that is, it seems we've got a separate issue here because of the specific nature of this provision, no?
Yes, it would have been a bad thing if Rep. Istook had slotted in an item for some contributor from his district. But it would hardly have been uncommon. This seems rather different.
[ed.note: Thanks to TPM reader CK for the first tip on this matter yesterday evening.]
--Josh Marshall
So I guess the questions on the Istook Amendment are pretty straightforward.
What is Rep. Istook's explanation for inserting the provision in the omnibus spending bill?
Subject to the quality of that explanation, will Rep. Istook face any disciplinary action, either formal or informal?
On the Senate floor, Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said that neither he nor House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young knew that provision had been inserted into the bill. Beside Istook, which members of congress and/or congressional staffers knew about the Istook Amendment prior to the matter being brought up by Senate Democrats?
Who gave the sign off to insert the provision into the bill?
--Josh Marshall
Many of you have asked if we'll be putting together a tally of how each Republican member of the House voted on the DeLay Rule. We won't. But the Daily DeLay website is doing such a running tally, based on information from TPM and other sources.
According to their latest tally, only 42 reps. have been willing to say publicly that they voted for the DeLay Rule -- a rule which reportedly passed overwhelmingly on a voice-vote in a caucus of over 230 members.
--Josh Marshall
