Reflecting popular support tagged as high as 70%, Senator Hillary Clinton had proposed an amendment establishing an independent commission on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Rather than the majority-proposed version that would have empaneled Congresspeople and with Republicans retaining agenda control, Clinton's version was modeled after the 9/11 Commission, appointed by the Executive and featuring no current politicians. Where are the Democratic ideas, you ask? Here's one Hillary had: cut the crap and appoint some people without vested partisan interest to investigate the facts.
So what would the response of the GOP be? As if you had to ask--the amendment failed. Not only did it fail, it failed on a strict party line, David Vitter (R-LA) somehow missing from a vote on the biggest issue facing his state since secession. I'll leave it to Louisiana's constituents to ask Vitter what he had going* (since Sen Landrieu made the vote.) I was more curious about what our own Gordon Smith had to say for himself.
Of course, without access dollars you don't actually talk to Smith himself; for that he has people like Jared White (spelling guessed at). Jared was a delightful Young Republican who certainly did as much to help as possible, without actually yielding relevant information. It couldn't have been more than an hour after the vote had been taken, but Jared seemed ready with a firm answer to my initial question about his vote: because the commission vote was an amendment to an appropriations bill, and that bill was deemed "detrimental" to Oregon, Smith had to vote no.
One thing aides and phone answerers in Senate offices don't like, is follow up questions. They've given you what they got from above, and now you're asking them to wing it like Scotty McClellan. But two obvious followups emerged in my head and I went with them.
"So, what was the provision?"
"Excuse me?"
"What was the part of the bill that the Senator felt was detrimental to Oregonians?"
"Uhhmmm, I....don't know."
I hit the useful-info terminus on that one, I realized, and took the name of the applicable legislative aide for followup later. But before he could shunt me to voicemail, I gave him #2: "So the Senator's opposition was based on its placement as an amendment?" That got a yes, and we were at the moment of truth--would Smith support the idea of a 9/11 Commission as a standalone bill?
Jared parried with the reliable "I can't address details," to which I said, "Just address the principle. Does he support a task force appointed by the Executive, with no current Members of Congress?" Jared had Gordon be noncommittal on that one, not surprisingly. So does Gordon Smith support a 9/11-style Katrina commission? You bet he does or doesn't! We'll see if the LA calls me back and can explain things any better.
But hey, maybe there was some devilish plot in the bill to make Oregonians drink only Bud and Coors, and Gordy was just looking out for us. Surely if it were detrimental to the state, I figured, Smith wouldn't have wasted the chance to reach across the aisle and seek support from his Democratic counterpart, Ron Wyden. After all, the state has a long history of bipartisan cooperation at the federal level. Surely, I figured, Smith must have alerted his colleague to the danger in voting Yea, as Wyden did.
So I called up the Wyden office, and asked if they knew what Gordon was referring to. They didn't, and again I wasn't surprised. I was a little disconcerted that they referred me to the Thomas website to read the text (I had already been), rather than easing my mind by assuring me that Wyden wouldn't have voted for an appropriation that would hurt Oregon. They missed a prime opportunity to say what was true: Wyden voted to find out the truth; Smith just isn't that serious about it, and may even prefer NOT to discover it.
If you call and are able to find out what perplexed Smith so much that he had to join a panicked majority and kill the commission vote, let us know. So far I'm highly dubious any such provision existed, that isn't just a convenient out for his nay vote on the hearings.
This doesn't seem like the last word on an independent commission--Congress and the President dragged their feet under duress for months on the formation of the 9/11 panel before finally acquiesing--so don't forget which party was out front, and which was not ready to seek the truth.
*update 9AM--
commenter MFL at Kos noted that Vitter's staffers called it "a dire emergency", but that he would support an independent commission.
Update 10AM--
commenter LynnS at Kos claims that Smith's staffer changed their story to the broader "procedural problems with the amendment" line that many folks are hearing from GOP offices, but more importantly she notes that the staffer indicated clearly that Smith was IN FAVOR of an independent commission. If you get a confirm, or a different story, drop a comment on us.
Update 2PM--
Over at Tapped, they're citing The Hill to wonder how long the Democrats can remain unified on not participating in sham hearings controlled by the GOP. I share their (Tapped's) revulsion--what on EARTH will it take for the opposition party to get some spine? We're not even asking for them to hang tough on difficult political issues like gay marriage (although it'd be nice); this one is both ideologically AND politically supportable. Jeee-sus.
--TJ
Thanks for trying, anyway. I don't know where to find the most sludge, New Orleans or Washington.
Posted by: Hootsbuddy | September 15, 2005 at 05:13