Essential Estrogen

When Edwards supporter and Cedar Rapids resident Harvey Ross was given opportunity to ask the daughter of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards a question, he wanted to expand on something her father brought up during the most recent debate in New Hampshire.

"I've been raising two teenagers," he said when given the microphone. "Teenagers, in general, seem to spend a little less time with parents than they do at an earlier age. I have two questions. One, how much time did you feel deprived of having with your father during the time he's been in public service and how has that affected your relationship? I also want to ask you about the differences that were mentioned during the debates about you and your mother having a different opinion on the issue of gay marriage."

Cate Edwards, now 25 and a student at Harvard Law School, made quick work of the first question, explaining that she was 16 when her father first launched his bid for U.S. Senate. and that she never felt neglected or deprived because of her father's launch into a career of public service. She added that both her mother and father make the necessary sacrifices and compromises while on the campaign trail to ensure both her younger siblings -- Jack, 7, and Emma Claire, 9 -- continue to receive as much one-on-one time as they need with both parents.

"I do have a very different view of gay marriage than my dad," she said. "Children don't always agree with their parents -- it might be a little creepy if they did."

Cate went on to explain that she feels her father is very progressive on the issue of gay rights including civil unions, but that he remains unable to make the leap to gay marriage. She summed this up as a generational divide and her traveling mate, actor James Denton (pictured above with Cate), agreed.

"I think Cate is right about this," he told the audience at Coe College in Cedar Rapids. "I'm from roughly the same generation as John Edwards and also have a difficult time using the word marriage for gay couples."

After the event, Ross said he was satisfied with the answer.

"I really suspected that John Edwards has a good sense of fairness on this issue," he said. "He doesn't always give us the words that the GLBT community wants to hear, but I've seen him at least twice in debates -- not only this year, but in the debate four years ago -- and if you really listen to his answers he has a wonderful sense of fairness about how no one should be able to be discriminated against and equal justice under the law."

He added that he understands about children taking views and stances that are different from their parents.

"My daughter will be caucusing this year and she is looking at the candidates in relation to her own values and ideas," he said. "She is making up her own mind and, really, isn't that what we as parents want?"

Despite the tour through Iowa on college campuses being geared toward younger voters, many older Iowans were on hand at Coe to hear what Cate Edwards and Denton had to say.

"I was very interested to see what the younger generation of the Edwards family was like," said Bob King, a local Democratic activist and one of the older people in the audience. "I wanted to know where they were politically and personality-wise too.

King said he enjoyed the event and was leaving with a lot of respect for Cate.

"She was a very personable young lady," he said. "She answered the questions very well and is obviously someone who thinks very quickly on her feet. I admire her very much because she isn't ashamed or too proud to say 'I do not know.'"

In addition to Coe College, Cate Edwards and Denton met with Iowans on the campuses of the University of Iowa, Grinnell College and Drake University.

Yesterday, local officials in Aurora, Ill. confirmed that Planned Parenthood followed all proper procedures while developing a health center. There was no ground to deny an occupancy permit. The doors of Planned Parenthood's newest health center are open.

In a letter sent out today, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, cautioned that this would be the first of many such battles in the months ahead.

"But today, I'm reminded that when you combine 90 years of history and courage with tens of thousands of people like you, we can win," she wrote.

Since at least mid-April, the presidential campaign for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has relied heavily on two things: family and technology. Today, however, the campaign is rolling out what might prove to be its secret weapon.

In a letter to supporters today, Ann Romney announced her own website. From her pet causes to her favorite recipes, the first lady hopeful is taking it all directly to not only Iowa caucus goers, but to voters throughout the nation.

"On the new site, I will provide an insider, behind-the-scenes view of the campaign," she wrote. "I hope this site will be forum to not only share ideas and information, but also to share opportunities for getting involved with the campaign."

On the site, Ann writes candidly about her battle with Multiple Sclerosis.

"When I was first diagnosed, it was probably the most difficult time for me," she said. "I was having difficulty with my physical balance, but I would soon realize I was having as much difficulty with my emotional balance. I was overwhelmed and had so many questions. I had always been an independent person, strong and able. I saw the disease as an invading pac man -- eating away at the myelin that was protecting my nerves. It was chewing me up, but I didn't know when or how it would spit me out."

She goes on to detail her treatment -- both traditional and alternative -- and to encourage others suffering from the disease to contact the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

The site also features "AnnTV" as well as family and campaign photos. Such features are hardly new to Romney supporters who have long enjoyed "MittTV" and the Five Brothers Campaign Blog. What is new -- if not downright unusual -- is that while Ann's site may run on the same server as the official MittRomney.com site, for the average web viewer it appears as a separate entity. She remains the only candidate spouse to date that has her own campaign domain name and that is directing voters -- especially female voters -- to her news, views, thoughts and events.

It could be that the Romney campaign has taken the advice of Republican pundits such as Pat Buchannan who recently said on MSNBC that he was surprised Romney didn't have Ann in the spotlight more often.

"...Mitt Romney's wife Ann is absolutely beloved in Republican circles," Buchannan told MSNBC anchor Monica Novotny. "I mean, she is really the favorite wife of any Republican. ... I don't know her, but everything I've seen of him and his family, I think this is the most extraordinary asset Mitt Romney has."

Despite the fact that Buchannan went on to add that Ann's contribution wouldn't be a disadvantage because "she's an extremely attractive lady," it is doubtful the interview passed without bleeping the Romney campaign radar. Whether you or are not a Mitt Romney supporter, there is no denying that Ann Romney plans to add much more than good looks to the 2008 presidential cycle -- and that she's going to do so with her husband's blessing.

Congressmen Bruce Braley and Leonard Boswell have issued statements in regard to the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program, a program that would extend health insurance to more than 25,000 additional Iowa children.

Rep. Bruce Braley:

"The President just doesn't get it. With the stroke of his pen, 26,000 Iowa kids could have gotten health insurance coverage for the first time. Instead, President Bush's veto has jeopardized the health insurance coverage of the 37,000 Iowa kids currently covered by the HAWK-I program.

"Congress will now try to override the President's veto. Given the strong bipartisan support this program has received, I hope Republicans who have sided with President Bush over children will reconsider their vote and see the long-term benefits of insuring 3.8 million more American kids.

"And I certainly hope Congressman King will reconsider his opposition to children’s health insurance and join a unified Iowa Congressional delegation in supporting a program that provides such clear benefits for Iowa kids.”

Rep. Leonard Boswell:

“I’m extremely disappointed that the President did not exercise the right to change his mind, but instead, turned his back on millions of uninsured children in this country. The American people strongly support the SCHIP legislation—both Republicans and Democrats-- and it’s a shame that this president vetoes popular bipartisan legislation, such as the Stem Cell bill and now SCHIP.”

Note: I'm on my way out the door to a candidate event. If more statements from Iowa officials surface while I'm gone, I'll add them when I return.

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson held a luncheon in Dubuque today. Roughly 100 people attended and Thompson began his speech while holding his daughter's hand and explaining why he was running for president.

I'm working on a formal write-up of the event, but, while you wait, here's a short clip of the beginning of Thompson's speech today.

The dark blue signs on the hotel wall read "Fred Thompson." The stickers peppered on suit jackets and light sweaters and the marquee outside read the same. The introduction by the local county chairman was for Fred Thompson. Despite all of this, however, today's political show in Dubuque was owned by children -- especially the former Tennessee senator's young daughter, Hayden.

Thompson entered the room with his wife, Jeri, and Hayden by his side. As he moved to the front of the crowd of roughly 100 Iowans, the young girl remained by his side even as members of the staff motioned toward a chair on the sidelines, next to her mother.

After a few introductory comments, Thompson turned to his daughter and asked, "Are you going to go sit with your Momma, or are you enjoying the limelight here?"

The answer came quickly and clearly: "I'm enjoying the limelight." And, so, she remained by his side for most of his 40 minutes of remarks.

Hayden, although the most public child in the room, was hardly the only young person in attendance -- or the only one who wanted a piece of the limelight.

To Thompson's far left sat Jennifer Maki, a teacher at Hillcrest on Campus School, and several students enrolled in her elections class. As a part of their studies each student had been assigned a Republican and a Democratic candidate to follow and had presentations from several campaign staff members.

"Fred Thompson's campaign was one we had not heard from yet," said Maki. "So when this opportunity arose for them to come and meet him in person we took advantage of it. I think meeting a candidate in person really makes a lasting impression."

Brady W., a 15-year-old student in the class, said he was looking forward to learning more about all the candidates.

"We've had different people come from the political parties and speak with us," he said. "We're really just trying to get more information and learn as much as we can about each candidate. We hope that sometime during the next few months to choose a campaign to help with."

Nancy Conlin of Dubuque sat with her 4-year-old son at the table directly behind the class and also pointed to curiosity as her primary reason for attending the event.

"We are just trying to learn as much about the candidates as we can," she said. "I want to know his stand on education and taxes. I want to know about how he plans to fund education and his views on school vouchers."

While those at the tables inside the event enjoyed a free lunch, Barbara Smeltzer stood close to the hotel lobby, directing newly arrived guests to a sign-in table.

"I'm a great believer in taking a look at all the candidates," she said. "I want to see where they stand. I don't miss a chance to go and see them when they come. I think it's something we all should do. We are lucky enough in Dubuque -- if people want to take advantage of the opportunity -- you can probably meet the future president of the United States."

Smeltzer, who admits she is leaning toward Arizona Sen. John McCain, said she was hoping to hear Thompson discuss health care, education and the war in Iraq.

"I'm very interested in what's going to happen in Iraq," she said. "I am a supporter of the surge so it will be interesting to see where he is coming from in relation to that. I want to know what he's going to do about taxes and possible tax cuts. I'm very interested in the economy and education is another priority along with health care."

Although Brady had an education question he hoped to ask Thompson, he did not end up being one of those called on during the limited time of the event. While Thompson spoke at length about immigration, health care, the economy and the military, education wasn't a primary focus of his prepared remarks. Conlin also didn't get to hear what she wanted in relation to education, but said she was pleased with what she did hear.

"He had a good message on national security," said Conlin. "That is an important issue for families. I think that's the part of his remarks that stick out to me the most."

The end of the event, however, was doubly disappointing for Maki and the students. Not only did they not have opportunity to ask their questions, but scheduling prevented them from being able to have their photograph taken with Thompson.

"I liked a lot of what he had to say," said Brady, who was assigned Sen. Joe Biden and Duncan Hunter as candidates to follow. "I hope that we will have a change for our country -- that he can provide different things for our country to make it a better place to live."

Maki said it was good to see Thompson in person because he hasn't been as available as some of the other candidates.

"I thought he was a very good speaker," she said. "I hadn't heard him in the debates or anything because he has not been participating. I liked when he talked about going back to the original principles of our country. I think that's really important in a time when our Constitution has been torn asunder by the current administration. I think it's very important not only for me, but for my students to hear that's still important to somebody."

Smeltzer said she wasn't swayed by what Thompson had to say, but was impressed.

"He is a very engaging speaker," she said. "I heard some things I expected to hear such as he is favor of building the military and he had a very nice answer on a health care question."

She doesn't think that he -- as of yet -- has managed to set himself apart from the others also seeking the White House.

"He has not set himself apart yet -- at least not for me personally," she said. "I can certainly understand why people would follow him because he is personable and he does present very well. I guess it's a case of time will tell."

Iowa's federal lawmakers have issued statements in regard to the president's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program, a program that would extend health insurance to more than 25,000 additional Iowa children.

Statements by Congressmen Bruce Braley and Leonard Boswell were printed earlier today.

Congressman Dave Loebsack:

“We have a moral obligation to protect and nurture our children and provide them with every opportunity to succeed. By vetoing this overwhelming bipartisan legislation, President Bush has broken this promise, jeopardizing the future health coverage for millions of low-income children.

“In Iowa, HAWK-I provides health benefits, including doctor’s visits, vaccinations, prescription drugs and other critical services, to over 37,000 lower-income children. With the health, well-being, and future of our children are at stake, President Bush has shown complete disregard for the needs of hardworking, tax-paying, low-income American families.

“Even if the President disagrees, the health and wellbeing of Iowa’s children is of the utmost importance. I will not let the President’s politically misguided veto endanger the HAWK-I program or the health of Iowa’s children.”

Senator Tom Harkin:

“Just two short days after the President declared October 1st Child Health Day and recognized the important role CHIP has played in helping poor children stay healthy, he has decided to turn his back on the health of millions of American kids. The CHIP bill has the overwhelming support of Democrats and Republicans, nurses, doctors, teachers and health insurance companies, for one reason – because it works. Once again, President Bush’s rhetoric fails to match his actions, and this time it is at the expense of children across the nation. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the Senate to continue fighting for working families by overturning this veto.”

There is not any statement in relation to the veto on Congressman Tom Latham's site or Congressman Steve King's site. King's site continues to prominently feature his his challenge to Iowa Gov. Chet Culver for a debate on SCHIP (known locally as HAWK-I). King also asserts that the expansion would make it easier for illegal immigrants to get taxpayer funded health insurance.

While Sen. Chuck Grassley's site also does not reflect a statement on the veto, his views toward the SCHIP bill stand in stark contrast to Republican counterpart King.

When the U.S. Senate passed the bill, 67-29, Grassley said, "The legislation gets the children’s health insurance program back on track by making states enroll low-income children and cutting off adult coverage. About half the new money is just to keep the program running for the kids already on it. The rest goes to enroll more than 3 million new kids. The compromise bill we voted on today kept all the key provisions of the Senate bill, including a cap on new spending of $35 billion. The legislation sunsets in five years. The support of 18 Senate Republicans for the bill is testament to the strength of the bill and the success of the program. A lot of misinformation has been spread about this bill. But in Iowa, you can’t call a cow a chicken and have it be true. Along with keeping SCHIP going, Congress needs to pass tax incentives to help more low-income families get health insurance, and I’ll be working on those policies this year with Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate.”

Grassley went even further in his remarks on the Senate floor regarding the passage of the bill:

Mr. President, the Congress is poised to pass the reauthorization and improvement of the children's health insurance bill on a substantial bipartisan basis. In the House of Representatives, 40 Republicans who had voted against the House bill voted in support of this compromise bill. The Senate is, once again, poised to pass this bill with strong bipartisan support. This is a bipartisan compromise. It has broad support from Republicans and Democrats. It will help as many as 4 million low income uninsured children. About half the new money is just to keep the program running. The rest of the new money goes to cover more low income children. It provides better options for families to afford employer coverage. It takes even more steps to address crowd out. It phases adults out of the program. It discourages states from covering higher income kids. It rewards states that cover more of the lowest income kids. It puts the lowest income children first in line.

Here's what it's not: It's not a government takeover of the health system. It does not undermine immigration policy. It's not expanding the program to cover high income kids. It’s a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill for children.

Yesterday, the Ranking Member of Senate Budget Committee made some remarks on the Senate floor about the children's health insurance bill pending before the Senate. I would like to address the issues raised by my friend and colleague, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg repeatedly referred to the children's health insurance bill as leading to a nationalize system of health care. He said, “The goal here is to radically expand the size of a public insurance program to families who are doing quite well - families making up to $80,000 who may not have children or whose children may already be insured by the private sector - because they want to move more people onto the public insurance system because they want to have a nationalized system.” Mr. President, I have one simple question to ask all the critics of this bill who, when confronted with the actual policies in this compromise respond by shrieking: “$80,000!! $80,000!!!” And that question is - if this bill became law tomorrow, how many families earning $80,000 a year would be eligible for CHIP. The answer is: None. As they say in baseball: You can look it up.

I have one simple question to critics who, when asked to respond to what is actually in black and white in the bill, react by screaming: “National health care! Socialized medicine!” And that question is -- under what contorted reasoning is a capped block grant inclusive of policies that prohibit new waivers for parents, phases childless adults completely off the program and limits matching funding for higher income kids, nationalized health care? I guess you can call something, anything you want, but in Iowa you can't call a cow a chicken and have it be true.

Now, on the issue of the so-called "Budget Gimmick" that the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee also spoke to, I have this response. Senator Gregg said yesterday, “There’s the problem that there is a scam going on, a scam in this bill as to how it's paid for. This chart reflects the increased cost of the bill as it goes forward, but in order to adhere to their own budget rules, which they claim so aggressively to be following, such as pay-go, they have to take the program in the year 2013 from a $16 billion annual spending level down to essentially zero. In other words, they are zeroing out this program in the year 2013. That's called a scam.”

Now, Mr. President, I am a proud member of the Senate Budget Committee. I believe in fiscal discipline and spending restraint. I agree that under a Republican controlled Congress, spending was out of control. Part of the reason why Republicans lost control of the Congress is because we were unable to control spending. I believe that part of the reason that the President is threatening to veto this bill is that he is trying to play catch up for failing to veto six years of spending bills. I agree that fiscal discipline ought to be applied to spending bills and that we should pay some attention to the level of spending and to how spending is financed. Don't get me wrong, that is a good thing. But the place to start is with Appropriations measures, NOT the SCHIP bill.

So let me focus on the criticism that has been made about how this SCHIP bill is financed. We need to step back and look at the whole picture. The SCHIP program is a pretty small part of that picture. The thing about SCHIP is that it is not like Medicaid or Medicare. It is not a permanent program. Medicare and Medicaid are permanent programs. They are entitlements. SCHIP isn't. Now, there were some who wanted to turn SCHIP into an entitlement program. The House bill would have lifted the cap on the national allotment for SCHIP and extended the program forever. I fought hard to maintain the block grant for SCHIP and to ensure that the program did expire, so that in the future, Congress can evaluate and improve SCHIP, just as we are doing now. So, despite the best efforts of House Democrats, under the compromise bill when the program expires, it truly ends.

SCHIP is an expiring program. Let me say that again; SCHIP is an expiring program. While I know most of us in this chamber would no sooner let the Department of Defense expire than we would let the SCHIP program expire, that is a simple fact. And because it is an expiring program, it is subject to a very particular budget rule. That budget rule says that CBO must score future spending for the program based on the last year of the program's current authorization. So the baseline for SCHIP for next year is $5 billion. For the next five years, the baseline for SCHIP is $5 billion. For the next ten years, the baseline for SCHIP is $5 billion. It is actually $5 billion a year forever. That's right, forever!

According to CBO, over a million children would lose coverage if we simply reauthorized SCHIP at the assumed baseline. Who among us would go home and tell your constituents you voted to reauthorize the SCHIP program, but over a million kids lost coverage. That is not politically viable. During consideration of the Senate Finance Committee bill, there was an SCHIP alternative that included an increase in SCHIP spending of $9.5 billion over five years. Even the Members who opposed the Finance bill acknowledged that $5 billion was not enough. Everyone knows that the current baseline is not realistic. That created a hole in the budget we had to fill. So, what did we do? We filled it. It's that simple. We had to comply with the budget rules. So we did. Do those budget rules make sense? Well, that is a question for the Budget Committee, not the Finance Committee. The Budget Committee sets those rules and they are not for the Finance Committee to change.

There is another budget rule the Finance Committee was required to follow. That rule is called PAYGO which people around here know is short for "pay as you go" financing. It means that the bill needs to cover its six-year cost and the 11-year cost. And that makes sense after all. This bill proposes new spending and we should pay for it. And this bill does. This bill complies with those budget rules. It complies with the PAYGO requirement.

Now, the SCHIP reauthorization we are debating is only a five-year authorization. As I think everyone knows, the bill is paid for with an increase in the tobacco tax. This is just like the original SCHIP bill when it was created under a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997. Now, just like in 1997 when Republicans did it, we had a problem with how the tobacco tax works. The revenue from the cigarette tax is not growing as fast as health care costs. So that means the revenue raiser is not growing as fast as the cost of SCHIP. So the Finance Committee did what it was required to do to comply with the PAYGO budget rule. The Finance Committee bill reduces SCHIP funding to just below the funding that is in the current baseline.

That means that the Finance Committee in five years will have the same problem we faced in putting this bill together today. It will have to come up with the funds to keep the program running. It is true we are covering even more low-income kids in this bill. That's a good thing. Assuming that Congress does not tackle the increasing problematic issue of health care costs across the board, the Finance Committee, in five years, will have a bigger hole to fill. They will have more kids to keep covering and health care costs will be even higher than they are today. That is for the Finance Committee to face in five years. That is just like the job the Finance Committee had today to continue SCHIP. This is really nothing new. Now, my friend and colleague, for whom I have great admiration, has, once again, distorted the so-called “cliff” in the compromise CHIP bill. He has, once again, produced a chart that shows a dramatic decline in funding for this program.

Here is the chart used to raise the issue about financing of the compromise bill which is largely the Senate Finance Committee bill. It shows only the funding in the Finance Committee bill. The approach this chart takes reminds me of the story of seven blind men trying to describe an elephant. Each described a different part of the elephant: tusk, tail, ear, leg, but none could describe the whole elephant. They couldn't see the whole picture. We need to look at the whole picture. As we all know, the SCHIP program was created to supplement the Medicaid program. The goal of the program was to encourage states to provide coverage to uninsured children with incomes just above Medicaid eligibility. So to put my colleague's concerns in perspective, we need to look at the whole picture. We need to look at SCHIP spending as it relates to Medicaid spending. I'd like to draw your attention to this chart. So everyone can fully appreciate the consequences of our SCHIP bill in the context of the Medicaid program which it supplements, I want you to take a close look at this.

Let's start with this tiny little green line at the bottom. You have to squint to see it. The green line here represents the SCHIP baseline under current law. As I have already discussed, it is $5 billion each year for the next ten years and forever actually. Now let's look more closely and honestly at the actual problem we are facing. This massive orange area above it is Medicaid. No one needs to squint to see this. This is projected Medicaid spending for the next ten years. It’s a lot bigger than SCHIP. Then on top of that, we are looking to add new spending to SCHIP. The new spending is represented by the little blue line right here. Again, you almost have to squint to see it. As you can clearly see, costs are growing at a rapid pace overall. The overwhelming driver of the cost is not the relatively small increase and then decline of CHIP spending under the compromise bill - that is a blip on the radar compared to the massive increase of Medicaid spending.

We have a big problem here, Mr. President and it is not going away. Entitlement spending is ballooning out of control and in future years, if we do not act, we are going to struggle to keep these programs afloat. When you look at the whole picture it puts things into perspective. Now, remember all that fire and brimstone about the awful cliff in the compromise bill? The way that it continues to be described, you'd think the world was about to end. Now, looking at the big picture, where exactly is that cliff you might ask? Again, you'll have to squint, really hard but if you strain your eyes and look really closely, right here, that little dip just to the right of the dotted vertical green line is what my good friend from New Hampshire is so exercised about.

So this little blue line is what this debate is all about. This little blue line is the funding in the compromise agreement. This little blue line is what all the fuss is about. Seems like a whole lot hollering is going on over a dip that is hard to even see.

Let me tell you what the Compromise Agreement -- this little blue line -- is not. This is not a government takeover of health care. This is not socialized or nationalized medicine or anything like that. This is not bringing the Canadian health care system to America. This is NOT the end of the world as we know it. To suggest that this little blue line and this tiny dip is the dismantling of the US health care system boarders on the hysterical. While I concede that allotments under our bill in the years beyond the five year reauthorization do behave as described in my friend's chart, I don't think it warrants the heated rhetoric we are hearing today.

SCHIP is not the real fiscal problem here. The problem is that big, big orange area. It's Medicaid. Senator Gregg and I worked together in the Deficit Reduction Act to try to reign in egregious Medicaid spending and I am proud of the work we did. We also found out how hard it is to dial back entitlement spending. Even in a Republican-controlled Congress and even with the special procedural protections in a reconciliation bill, we only succeeded in shaving off $26 billion in Medicaid spending over a 10-year period. The problem of entitlement spending is still out there and SCHIP is a pebble next to the boulders that are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

I am very hopeful that once we are done with the CHIP debate, we can roll up our sleeves and get down to the business of tackling health care reform on a much larger scale. I know that Senator Wyden wants to take this on, and I want to join him in this bipartisan effort. As I have said many times, I had hoped that we could have used the debate on SCHIP to focus on these larger issues of health care reform and the uninsured. I tried to engage my colleagues on the other side.

I was repeatedly thwarted in that effort and told that SCHIP had to get done first. Well, hopefully we can get SCHIP done and then turn to the bigger issues, so that the next time the Congress has to tackle CHIP, this big orange block won't be so huge. So, in closing, I appreciate my friend's remarks. They are not without some merit. But put into context, I don't think they fit the crime we are accused of here. I yield the floor.

Republican presidential hopeful and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback discussed the bipartisan plan for a three-state solution in Iraq while meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani today in Washington, D.C.

"In my meeting with the Iraqi president, he indicated strong support for a federal Iraq," Brownback said. "Decentralizing power in Iraq offers the best chance for Iraqis to live in peaceful, united country where they can resolve their differences. The American people want to win in Iraq and this represents a viable way forward to stability and success."

Last week Brownback and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful, played leading roles in creating a broad coalition of senators from both sides of the aisle. The final vote was 75-23 in favor of a three-state political solution for Iraq. The plan is the only Iraq-related policy the Senate has adopted this year and calls for a loosely federated central government in Iraq with three semi-autonomous states for the Kurds, Sunni and Shia.

While some may consider Brownback and Biden strange bedfellows, both lawmakers are known for their ability to hammer out compromise bills that gain bipartisan support. Brownback worked with the late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota to author and promote The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Although Biden's original Violence Against Women Act was passed mostly along party lines, his latest proposed enhancement -- a domestic violence volunteer attorney network to represent domestic violence victims -- has Republican Sens. Arlen Specter and Ted Stevens as co-sponsors.

Lots of little bits of information floating around my desk and email inbox that deserve a mention and there are way too many pieces for me to write individual posts on each one. So, here's an all-in-one condiment (catsup) posting.

Ladies, Vote for Clinton or Burn in Hell

While these weren't the exact words spoken by former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack while stumping for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton last week in Iowa, it isn't such a long stretch, at least in my opinion.

According to the National Journal, Vilsack's exact words from the stump were: "I think there's a place in heaven for women who support women."

Just When You Thought a Tenderloin Sounded Good

If you're planning a trip to Solon for dinner at Joensy's you might -- or might not -- want to know that the Johnson County Health Department has shut the restaurant down because "it posed an imminent health hazard." A county health inspector reported live cockroaches on food preparation and other surfaces, thick piles of food and grease on the floor, door gaps that could allow pest entry, a dead rodent and various piles of trash.

The Gazette interviewed owner Brian Joens who stated the reports were exaggerated. It is unclear when the restaurant will reopen.

Iowa Legislators Are Good Value

The Washington Post is reporting that Delaware Sen. Joe Biden might have misused PAC funds while running a presidential campaign. Although there doesn't seem to be enough information in the article for the reader to do much more than speculate, there is an implication that the support of some of Biden's Iowa legislators was purchased for $500. Shoot, if I'd known they were that inexpensive, I'd have bought me a legislator years ago.

Another tidbit buried in that story: "Michael Toner, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who in 2003 wrote the regulation governing how politicians can use their leadership committees, said it is "very dangerous to be operating a leadership PAC while simultaneously running for president." Toner was formerly chief counsel of the Republican National Committee and now works for GOP presidential hopeful Fred Thompson."

Is it really appropriate to use a pundit -- even one who formerly held a position on the FEC -- to discuss something that may adversely affect a candidate from the other party? Seems to me that it would be difficult to remain an unbiased opinion when your guy might one day be going head-to-head against the guy on which you are commenting.

Mike Huckabee Legislative Endorsements

The presidential campaign for Republican Mike Huckabee announced three legislative endorsements. The group will co-chair a Legislators for Huckabee Advisory Committee and work to promote the former Arkansas governor to others in Des Moines.

Sen. David Hartsuch of Bettendorf, Rep. Carmine Boal of Ankeny and Rep. Dwayne Alons of Hull made public their support of Huckabee.

Outbreak of School Bomb Threats?

There was a recent bomb scare in New London and two previous ones at Burlington High School. Wednesday morning students were evacuated at Washington High School in Cedar Rapids when a student reported that s/he overheard other students discussing a bomb on campus. Police were called, but no evidence of a bomb was found.

I'm not sure how common bomb threats are at high schools, but four since the beginning of the year doesn't seem right to me.

Regents Lose Their Head

Current Iowa Board of Regents Executive Director Gary Steinke will be leaving the group to lead the Iowa Association of Independnet Colleges and Universities. He will begin his new assignment on Nov. 1 and has indicated pay was a factor. He earns roughly $150,000 per year as head of the regents. No word on how much he'll be paid for the organization that represents 29 private institutions.

Obama Gains Another

Iowa Rep. Pam Jochum of Dubuque has confirmed that she'll be endorsing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president.

It appears that most Iowa legislators are following leadership's suggestion that they spread the wealth in terms of presidential endorsements.

Legislature Considers Withdrawal

Iowa's lawmakers will investigate Bank of America's credit card promotions to college students at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University. Hearings of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee are scheduled for Oct. 29 and 30 on the marketing agreement between the credit card company, alumni organizations and the schools. Individuals who spent the most were provided exclusive access to university facilities, coaches and athletes.

Made in Iowa -- Unfortunately

Three years ago, Iowa law enforcement shut down about 125 methamphetamine labs each month. That figure is now down to about 12 labs per month. The decline is due, in large part, to a law that only permits purchase of one box of medicine containing pseudoephedrine each day.

The Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement believes, however, that some are skirting the law by visiting several different stores to purchase the product. Since it takes just over 40,000 milligrams of pseudoephedrine to create an ounce of meth and since a box of medicine contains about 350 milligrams of the drug, it would take someone quite a few trips to gather enough to create the drug. Despite the obvious time consumption some are advocating the current law that requires purchasers sign a log book should be expanded to include a computer system that would automate the log books and allow both pharmacists and law enforcement to share the information.

There is no word yet on how much such a computer system would cost, but the expansion is expected to be a topic of conversation with the state legislature convenes in January.

Senior staff additions, more field organizers and new Iowa field offices have been announced by the Richardson for President campaign.

"The Richardson for President campaign in Iowa is growing stronger from top to bottom," said Jim Farrell, new deputy state director. "If Americans want to end the war in Iraq, we must get all of the troops out of Iraq -- in months, not in years. Bill Richardson is the only candidate who will do it."

Farrell previously served as Bill Bradley's Iowa communications director in 2000. He was the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone's communications director, worked on the Clinton 1992 and 1996 campaigns and served in the press office of former Veterans Administration Secretary Jesse Brown. Most recently he served as executive director of the Montana Democratic Party during the successful campaign of U.S. Sen. Jon Tester.

David Rogers, newly named political director, is a native Iowan and left a position as field organizer for Iowans for Sensible Priorities to join the campaign. In 2004, Rogers served as Iowa state director for Dennis Kucinich's Presidential campaign and later served as Kucinich's national advance director. He recently ran two congressional campaigns in western Iowa.

Richardson's new caucus director, Shari Fitzgerald, is a seasoned Iowa political operative who has been involved in every caucus since 1972. She was part of Dick Gephardt's 2004 and 1988 presidential campaigns, Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign, President Carter's 1976 and 1980 campaigns and has served on the Democratic State Central Committee.

T.K. Anderson, newly announced deputy political director for eastern Iowa, has served as president of the Davenport NAACP for two terms and also as its political action chair. Anderson served two terms on the Davenport Civil Rights Commission, has been a candidate for the Scott County Board of Supervisors and has worked with the Tom Harkin, Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver campaigns. He is a Vietnam veteran and an experienced community and grassroots organizer.

Lauren Rose will take over as Iowa communications director. She replaces Tom Reynolds, who was promoted within the campaign to serve at a national level. Rose most recently worked for a national Democratic direct mail firm. In 2004, she worked in the South Carolina press operation of Gen. Wes Clark's presidential campaign, as well as on numerous campaigns in Texas.

Scheduling and advance will be handled by Valerie Herold. She served on the Virginia Coordinated Campaign in 2006 during Sen. Jim Webb's successful campaign and for Kerry-Edwards 2004 in Florida. Herold was a field director for Clinton-Gore 1996 in Florida, and worked for Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers.

The staff will join existing State Director Robert Becker, who was Bill Bradley's Polk County field director in 2000, Brad Frevert, and Phoebe Silag. Frevert serves as Iowa field director and is a native Iowan. He is also a veteran of the Tom Harkin and Tom Vilsack campaigns in 2002 and Kerry-Edwards 2004 in Iowa, and was previously the Iowa Democratic Party's field director.

Silag continues to serve as deputy Iowa communications director and is also a native Iowan. She is a graduate of the University of Iowa College of Law, a veteran of the Culver-Judge 2006 gubernatorial campaign and ACT in Iowa 2004.

The campaign is now operating 15 field offices in the state: Des Moines, Ames, Marshalltown, Davenport, Burlington, Ottumwa, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Dubuque, Waterloo, Mason City, Fort Dodge, Council Bluffs, Sioux City, and Storm Lake. Currently, more than 70 organizers are employed in Iowa.

The presidential campaign for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is launching a new television ad today in Iowa and New Hampshire that details the candidate's record on the issue of health care.

The 30-second spot, entitled "Stand By Us," describes Clinton's efforts to pass universal health care in the 1990s and her work in relation to the Children's Health Insurance Program -- an expansion of which was recently vetoed by President George W. Bush despite Republican lawmakers such as Iowa's own Sen. Chuck Grassley calling on him to approve the bipartisan measure. Although the U.S. Senate passed the measure with a veto-proof majority, the House vote was much closer.

“With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed 10,500 uninsured Iowa children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford," said Clinton in a prepared statement following the veto. "These children are invisible to this president, but they aren't invisible to the American people or to the overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress – and they aren't invisible to me. I was proud to help create the Children's Health Insurance Program during the Clinton Administration, which today provides health insurance for six million children.”

Although Clinton is first with a new ad, she is not the only presidential hopeful to issue a public comment following the President's action.

"At a time when we’re spending billions of dollars on a war that should never have been authorized and giving billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, today’s veto of this bipartisan plan shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans," said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. "But George Bush doesn’t have the last word, and I will keep fighting for the Republican votes needed to override his veto.”

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd questioned the President's priorities.

"This President's priorities are unconscionable," Dodd said. "With the resources it takes to execute just over 3 months of the Iraq War, we could fully fund the expansion of health care for needy children that Bush vetoed. Indeed, today's veto is another reminder that this war is not only adversely affecting our security but also adversely affecting our other top priorities, and it's time for Congress to do what it must do to end it."

John Edwards, although no longer a voting member of the Senate, expressed his dismay not only with the President's decision, but with the Republican presidential hopefuls who support the veto.

"Today, we have witnessed a president that has turned his back on health care for children," said Edwards. "Not surprisingly, in George Bush's administration, corporate cronies and insurance industry allies always come first, while children's health care comes last. In an America where nearly 9 million children don't have health coverage, Congress must do what is right and fight for these children and override Bush's cruel veto.

"Even more shocking is that Republican Presidential candidates, including Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are all lining up with President Bush and against health care for our children. Instead of threatening the health care of children, it's time for Bush, and Republicans like McCain, Giuliani, and Romney to start picking on someone their own size."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson also did not let his inability to vote in Washington prevent him from voicing his displeasure.

"The Grinch came three months early this year and stole children's health care," said Richardson. "Unfortunately, this is no fairy tale, and unless Congress overrides the President's veto, it will not have a happy ending. President Bush's veto is irresponsible. It is outrageous. It is simply immoral. Of the many shifting rationales the President has offered for vetoing this bill, one is that it will burden private insurance companies. That sums up everything we need to know about this President. Choosing between insurance companies and children should not be hard."

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, like Dodd, drew attention to the money being used in Iraq as a part of his statement.

"With one stroke of his pen, President Bush has denied health insurance to 3.8 million kids who were due to get it under this bipartisan expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program," Biden said. "He’s willing to spend billions and billions of dollars in Iraq, but he’s not willing to invest in our kids’ healthcare. It is unconscionable and wrong. Every child in this country should have health insurance. The President’s veto is a tragedy for the millions who don’t."

Republican hopeful and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the bill took the wrong approach, but refused to refer to it as bipartisan legislation.

"I agree with the President that this legislation – while well intentioned – took the wrong approach," he said. "The Democrat SCHIP expansion bill would take children out of private insurance and put them into government insurance. It was a flawed approach. The right course is to get all children and all citizens insured with private, market-based health insurance."

A close look at the websites for Republican candidates Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Sam Brownback produced no official statement in relation to the veto.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, voted against the measure in the House because he said the bipartisan plan did not go far enough.

Tonight, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced eight new recalls stemming from violations of lead paint standards.

KB Toys -- Wooden Toys

About 10,000 units of the Wooden Pull-Along Alphabet and Math Blocks Wagons, Wooden Pull-Along Learning Blocks Wagons, 10-in-1 Activity Learning Carts and Flip-Flop Alphabet Blocks are being voluntarily recalled by KB Toys, Inc.

Surface paints on the toys can contain excessive levels of lead.

Descriptions:

Wooden Pull-Along Alphabet & Math Blocks Wagons and Learning Blocks Wagons -- The recalled wooden toy wagons have 28 blocks and a pull string. The wagons measure about 7½" x 13" and have blocks with letters, words, numbers, or pictures on them. "First Learning" or "My Kidz" are printed on the products' packaging, in addition to UPC #834162002158 or #834162002165.

10-in-1 Activity Learning Carts -- The recalled activity carts are three dimensional learning toys with various activities. The cart measures about 17¼" x 16½" x 7¾". "First Learning" and UPC #834162002127 are printed on the products' packaging.

Flip-Flop Alphabet Blocks -- The recalled wooden toys have blocks that flip with letters, words, numbers, and pictures on them. The toy measures about 10 1/8" x 10¾" x 2¾". "First Learning" and UPC #834162001212 are printed on the products' packaging.

Sold at: KB Toys stores nationwide. The Pull-Along Wagons were sold from August 2005 to August 2007 for between $9 and $13. The 10-in-1 Activity Learning Carts were sold from August 2006 to September 2007 for about $30. The Flip-Flop Alphabet Blocks were sold from August 2006 to September 2007 for about $7.

These toys were manufactured in China. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from children and return them to any KB Toys retail store for a store credit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available on the CPSC website.

Kids II -- Baby Einstein Color Blocks

This recall involves the surface paint on the blue block included with the Baby Einstein Discover & Play Color Blocks, Model 30726 and Model 30881. The blocks are made of soft textures and come in different colors. Only date codes of GE7, GF7 and GG7 are included in this recall. The model number and date code are printed on the labels affixed to the green-colored block.

Roughly 35,000 units were sold at various retailers and specialty stores nationwide from June through September for between $10 and $13. They were distributed by Kids II Inc. and manufactured in China.

Consumers should take the recalled blue block away from children immediately and contact Kids II, 866.203.6788, to receive a free replacement of the affected block. A picture of the toy is available on the CPSC website.

Eveready Battery Co. -- Toy Flashlights

Over 75,000 of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" Medallion Squeeze Lights were sold nationwide between September 2006 and October 2007. Surface paints on the leather strap attached to the medallion squeeze light contain excess levels of lead. Consumers should take the recalled light away from children immediately and contact the firm, 800.925.0628, to receive a voucher for another Energizer-brand product.

The lights were imported by Eveready Battery Co. and manufactured in China. A photo of the flashlight is available on the CPSC website.

Dollar General -- Tumblers

Dollar General Merchandising is recalling about 63,000 Frankenstein tumblers that were sold in September 2007 for $1 each. The product is a green, plastic, Frankenstein head-shaped tumbler. It was manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately take these tumblers away from young children and return them to the store where purchased for a refund or replacement product.

Toys "R" Us -- CKI Children's Decorating Sets

About 15,000 children's toy decorating sets imported by Toys "R" Us and manufactured by CKI Toys of Hong Kong (actual manufacturing completed in China) are being recalled because surface paint on the back of the mirror contains excessive levels of lead.

These Totally Me! - Funky Room Decor Sets are designed to make various room decorating projects and include a clock, clock movement, satin fabric, round box, door hanger, mirror, paper mirror frame, glitter gluej, sticker sheet, foam shapes, sequins, seed beads, elastic cord, fabric flowers and gem stones. The mirror is the only part affected.

Consumers should take the recalled products away from children and return the item to the nearest Toys "R" Us store for store credit.

Dollar General -- Key Chains

Nearly 200,000 key chains with a coiled cord and a metal charm with an engraved inspirational word are being recalled by Dollar General for high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

The key chains were sold at Dollar General stores nationwide from June 2005 through August 2007 for about $1. They were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately take the key chains away from young children and return them to the store where purchased for a refund or replacement product.

Antioch Publishing - Bookmarks and Journals

About 150,000 bookmarks and journals imported by Antioch Publishing have excessive levels of lead. Paint on the spiral metal bindings of the journals, clip on the bookmarks and the clear coating on the marquis bookmarks and bracelets all contain excessive levels of lead. They were manufactured in China.

The character-themed bookmarks and journals include the following designs: Winnie the Pooh, lady bug and flower, hope and courage, star, sun and rainbow, sun and moon, coffee, follow him and cross, monkey and bananas, dragon, hugging cat, mother's touch, breast cancer, cherry blossoms, sweetheart and sassy.

Consumers should immediately take the bookmarks and journals away from children and contact Antioch, 800-543-1515, for a refund.

Sports Authority -- Aluminum Water Bottles

Over 11,000 Alpine Design Aluminum Water Bottles have surface paint that contains excessive levels of lead. The items were sold at Sports Authority and come in different colors -- silver, blue, red, blue with pink flowers, red with the image of a mouse or blue with the image of a zebra. They measure between six and 10.5 inches tall. The product was manufactured in China.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and return it to a Sports Authority store for a full refund.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $700 billion annually. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270, or visit CPSC's web site at www.cpsc.gov/talk.html. To join a CPSC email subscription list, please go to www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain this release and recall information at CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama outlined his plan for utilizing the National Guard responsibly, his comments coming on a visit to one of the poorest sections of Waterloo Thursday.

Introduced by a local Army reservist and speaking to an audience of roughly 300 people at the Boys and Girls Club, the Democratic presidential hopeful centered his remarks around Iowa's 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment that is headquartered in Waterloo. Although members of the Ironman Battalion have been stateside since July, while in Iraq the service men and women learned from friends and family back home that their deployment had been extended.

"It's time to use the guard and reserves responsibly," Obama said. "No more unpredictable deployments. No more extended tours. No more failures to plan, to communicate down the chain of command, or to reset the equipment that we've left in Iraq. When we've got service-members who have to find out that their tour has been extended in a phone call home, we're not keeping that trust, and we're not keeping this country safe."

The Iowans were deployed to Iraq during March and April of 2006 and given the task of convoy security. The group provided securty for more than 500 combat patrols and escorted a total of 62,000 trucks over 4 million miles in the Al Anbar province. Two members of Company C -- Sgt. 1st Class Scott Nisely, 48, of Marshalltown and Sgt. Kampha Sourivong, 20, of Iowa City -- were killed during combat near Al Asad, Iraq in September 2006.

Obama's white paper on the National Guard and Reserves calls for improved mental health services, replacement of lost or over-used equipment and enhanced services for military families. He also would elevate the chief of the National Guard to the rank of four-star general and make that person a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Instead of trying to steer the conversation around Iraq and the current state of foreign policy in America, Obama led head-on into what many believe to be one of his strongest talking points.

"In the rush to go to war in Iraq we were failed by a president who didn't tell the whole truth," Obama said. "We were also failed by the media and the Congress. Let's be clear, without that vote, there would have been no war."

From domestic needs at home to failed national security, Obama hammered out a laundry list of items, which he eventually lumped into one phrase: "the cost of war."

"The right person to end this war is the person who had the judgement to oppose it from the beginning," he said. "There is no military solution in Iraq -- there never has been. That is why from day one I'll begin removing troops from Iraq immediately."

Obama promised to begin pulling out troops at the rate of one or two regiments a month while sending humanitarian relief into the country.

"Have no confusion," he said, "I will end this war."

While the announcement of Obama's plan for guard members, reservists and their families was the focus of the event and the primary reason the campaign chose Waterloo, campaign officials said there was more reasoning behind their exact venue choice within the city.

"We've been wanting to do an event in this particular neighborhood," said Josh Earnest, Iowa communications director for the campaign. "In addition to discussing the plan for the National Guard -- which is important locally because of the headquarters being in Waterloo -- the senator also plans to take questions from the audience and reach out to this segment of the population."

At least some of the rally attendees were a bit surprised when they heard the subjects to be discussed. Obama supporter Dr. Michael Blackwell, who stresses that through his organization affiliations he continues to work for the benefit of all the Democratic campaigns, was one person who spoke candidly following the event.

"I didn't know ahead of time that he was going to focus on foreign policy and deal with the situation in Iraq," he said. "That being said, I thought it was good to hear him really focus on it and take the time so that we could hear more than just a 60-second soundbyte. He really described his assessment of the situation, what he's done in the past and what he would do if he were to be elected president."

Blackwell said that he also would have liked, especially in this particular neighborhood, to have heard Obama discuss his politics of hope.

"In the question-and-answer portion he did try to address concerns about jobs, economic development and health care," Blackwell said. "So, he did touch upon those, but not as the central part of his speech. I have looked on his website and I have heard him in more private settings talk about jobs and training and education that would hopefully lead to better employment opportunities for the poor. I know his heart is there and that he's done that type of work in Chicago. But, yes, it would have been nice to hear that today since there are people in Waterloo who need to hear that and be encouraged. There are a lot of working class, unemployed and under-employed people here."

Waterloo resident Louise Miller said the portion of the event that meant the most to her was the part on domestic policy.

"There are just so many people that do not have health care," she said while holding open the facility door so others could exit. "Senior citizens especially rely on Social Security and have limited opportunities."

She admitted to being a member of the "Obama Mamas" -- something the button pinned to her jacket already proclaimed -- and then explained why she was supporting Obama.

"When you start listening [to all the politicians], you have so many saying so many different things that you don't know what is right and what isn't," she said. "You've got to just try and weigh it and determine which way you are going to go. Obama. I like the man himself and I think he is doing the best at getting his message across. It seems to me that he is saying what the people want to hear."

In a move that this reporter has not seen at an Obama event, staff members performed a brief question-and-answer skit before the event began that could have been dubbed Iowa Caucus 101. The hard ask for support, however, came from the man himself.

"We want you to sign a supporter card," he told the audience before beginning his prepared remarks. "We're going to have the exits covered as you leave so that we can at least ask you to sign a card. Also, if you have already signed a card, we want you to be a precinct captain."