Essential Estrogen

Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has scheduled a "Conversation" at the University of Dubuque for this Sunday, March 4. The event will run from 7:30 to 9 p.m.

The event will take place in the Myers Administration Building Atrium - intersection of Algona and Bennett streets - near the center of campus. Parking is available directly behind the building off Bennett.

No charge, but those interested are asked to RSVP to 563.495.6115.

There are also rumors of stops in the Des Moines area the following Monday, March 5, including private meetings with state legislators. Details, however, have not been announced.

The last of VoteVets.org's trilogy of ads has been released today.

This ad features retired Gen. Wes Clark and Army artillery officer Mike Breen and highlights the Bush administration's failed foreign policy.

"The helicopters, the equipment and the troops are stuck fighting George Bush's war in Iraq," said Gen. Clark in a prepared statement. "As I said before the invasion, military action against Iraq would distract us from fighting those who attacked us on 9/11: Al Qaeda. George Bush and Dick Cheney constantly trumpet their capture of Saddam Hussein, but where is Osama bin Laden?

"The President did not listen when I went before House Armed Services Committee in 2002, discouraging an invasion of Iraq. The President did not listen to General Batiste and General Eaton, as they called for a new strategy in Iraq. And the President is still not listening."

As referenced by Clark above, Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton were featured in the first and second VoteVets.org 'Generals' ads, respectively.

Here is the Eaton ad:

And here is the Batiste ad:

Not too long ago I sent an email to Lyn which read:

Lyn, Carter's making waves. You should blog about it.

To which I received the following reply:

Still busy with Scouts. You do it. :-)

So... you get the non-hard-news-writer today. My apologies up front.

There's an article on Yahoo! News from Reuters which discusses former Pres. Jimmy Carter "blasting" George W. Bush's presidency as "the worst in history" in international relations.. AND denouncing British Prime Minister Tony Blair as little more than a Bush lap dog.

You know, outside of the fact that it's former Pres. Jimmy Carter saying it, I'm not really sure what's so news-worthy here. Carter says nothing I haven't overheard in the check-out line at the Hy-Vee for well over a year. (And I can tell you that you DO NOT want to know what the fellows at the corner donut shop are saying if this little piece of Carter news upsets you.)

The funniest part? The White House has nothing to say. Instead, they let the RNC take pokes at Carter. Once again I'm reminded of that Steve Martin movie, "Leap of Faith." It's obvious the White House doesn't wish to provoke a man of real faith and prefers to allow the 'underlings' do the job.

...

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said in a telephone interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette from the Carter Center in Atlanta.

"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including (those of) George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me," Carter told the newspaper.

...

"Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient," Carter said when asked how he would characterize Blair's relationship with Bush.

And that's only a taste.

For those who haven't heard: This presidential election season is different.

For those Iowans who haven't heard: Roughly 25 million Americans will be able to cast votes in 2008 Presidential preference primaries without consideration of which candidates earn Iowa bragging rights.

In 2008, two caucus states will go first - Iowa and Nevada - on Jan. 14 and Jan 19, respectively. They will be closely followed by New Hampshire with the nation's first primary Jan. 22 and a Democrats-only primary in South Carolina on Jan. 29. Only recently, the legislature in Florida moved its primary to Jan. 29, although there is still discussion about whether the Democrats will remain on that date or they'll move further back into the field and switch to a caucus. While no date has been set for the South Carolina Republican primary, state party leaders have indicated they will schedule the vote prior to any other southern contest (including Florida).

The first Tuesday in February, the fifth, became the first date all remaining states (which did originally include Florida) could schedule their Presidential Preference contests. It didn't take long for many states to decide they wanted to be first out of the gate. The entire state of Idaho and Democrats in New Mexico will be holding caucuses on Feb. 5. Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah are the 11 states holding their primaries on that date.

The work-in-progress calendar of primaries and caucuses maintained by the National Association of Secretaries of State shows Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Texas as states with primaries that are considering a move to Feb. 5. In addition, caucus state Colorado is also considering a move to Feb. 5, according to NASS.

Compared to the first Tuesday, the remainder of February is quiet. Louisiana will hold primaries on Feb. 9. Democrats in Maine will caucus on Feb. 10. Maryland and Virginia will host primaries on Feb. 12 and Wisconsin will follow suit on Feb. 19. Democrats in Hawaii and Idaho finish off the month with their caucuses on Feb. 26.

So where are all these million of votes which might be cast prior to the Iowa caucus? As the saying goes, timing is everything.

While votes may have not been counted in other states, there will have most definitely been votes cast prior to Iowa's current caucus date of Jan. 14. Voters in five of the Feb. 5 primary states -- California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Utah - will be able to cast ballots well before Iowans begin lining up at their caucus locations through the advent of early and absentee voting.

According to one Iowa political insider, all the Presidential campaigns are aware -- or at least should be aware -- of the absentee ballots that will be cast prior to the Iowa caucus. "This dynamic, however, is so new and untested," the source said, "no campaign is going to discuss its particular strategy in dealing with it."

California, in particular, poses a unique opportunity to presidential hopefuls. As of November 2006, the state had nearly 4 million voters signed up to be permanent absentee voters. That is, nearly 4 million California voters will have an absentee ballot automatically placed in the mail to them on Jan. 7, 2008. According to an official in the California Secretary of State's office, military and overseas ballots are to be mailed beginning Dec. 7, and California plans to do "as much as possible" to boost its primary into the national spotlight.

It's difficult to know exactly what the impact will be, especially since two of the states -- Illinois and New Jersey -- will be hosting their first presidential preference where early voting is allowed without excuse. New Jersey has just under 5 million voters registered. Of those, just over 2 million, or 48 percent, participated in the Nov. 2006 general election. While the Division of Elections does not maintain statewide totals of the percentage of population to vote absentee, the clerk's office in Bergen County (the county with the largest population) reports roughly 6 percent of the county voted by absentee in 2006 -- only one year after the legislature allowed "no excuse" absentee voting.

While Illinois allows those with a valid excuse to vote by mail or in person 40 days prior to an election, in 2005 the state also began offering unqualified early voting 22 days prior to an election. This means that the state's 7 million registered voters will have an opportunity to cast an early ballot prior to the start of the Iowa caucus and, because of the newness of the program, there is no historical indicator of how many will vote early.

Given California's permanent absentee voters and traditional percentages of individuals who cast "no excuse" absentee votes; however, it would not be unlikely to see 5 million absentee votes in the can prior to the start of the Iowa caucus.

Carrie Giddins, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, agrees there will be absentee ballots cast prior to the Iowa caucus; however, she takes offense to the 25 million figure. "You're looking at total registered voters across those five states," she said. "Not everyone is going to vote. And of those who do vote, not everyone is going to vote absentee -- and not everyone who votes absentee is going to do so prior to the Iowa caucus. There's one line of thinking which says many of the absentee voters will hang on to their ballots to see what happens in Iowa.

"No matter how many absentee votes are cast," she added, "the results of those ballots will not be announced prior to the Iowa caucus."

Former U.S. Congressman and state party chair Dave Nagle says he isn't sure what dynamic will play out in the 2008 elections.

"Of course having the calendar so front loaded is a major disadvantage to candidates who are without major funding," he said in a phone interview on Tuesday. "Coming in fourth in Iowa caucuses is no longer good enough. If a lesser candidate wants to continue, the campaign will have to climb into Iowa's top three.

"The fear for both sides of the aisle is that you end up a year out from the actual contest with a 'wounded duck' who has not been throughly tested. That could actually intensify late state activity although historically those types of late rallies haven't been successful as some of the later voters may view the early front runner as inevitable."

Nagle finished by saying what could really be "devastating to Iowa" would be if those front states begin releasing their absentee ballot return totals prior to the caucus.

Of those states considering a jump to Feb. 5 (or earlier), five could have additional influence due to their absentee balloting and/or early voting practices. Arizona, Kansas (which has only held two presidential preference primaries -- 1980 and 1992), North Carolina, Oregon and Texas all will potentially play a larger role if their contests move forward.

Since all the crystal balls seem to be malfunctioning when it comes to Iowa and the 2008 elections, no one can say for sure if the current and possible calendars will push Iowa to a position of more importance or bring to a close the state's leading role in presidential politics. There is one thing, however, of which all Iowans can be sure: No one can vote absentee in our caucus.

A broad coalition of social-action groups and ministries will sponsor a forum Friday in Des Moines to urge U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell to stand up against a presidential veto of domestic-spending increases. Then, members of the coalition will sit down to a 98-cent lunch to show how little is left on the plate of food-stamp recipients.

Social-action and religious groups have joined together as a part of this coalition. The social-action groups are Iowa Citizen Action Network; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; Food Bank of Iowa; RESULTS; the Iowa Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers; Every Child Matters; Working Families Win; Iowa Community Action Association; Child and Family Policy Center; and Iowans for Sensible Priorities. The religious community is being represented by Social Witness Advocacy and Education Ministry for the Iowa Conference of the United Methodist Church, United Methodist Conference, and National Catholic Rural Life Conference.

"New leadership in Congress has meant a change in thinking and passage of a budget that is fair for all Americans," said Charlie Wishman, organizer for ICAN. "However, the president promises to veto any proposal that exceeds the levels he set out earlier this year -- levels that contained many cuts to vital discretionary programs. Once again, this president will use his veto power to subvert the needs and the will of Americans, only to stay the course on dangerous budget cuts that will affect millions of Americans.

"Our message to Congressman Boswell is that he needs to stand by this budget, and vote to override this president’s veto,” Wishman said.

Boswell, a Democrat representing the 3rd District, has been invited to attend the event; however, it is not known at this time if he will be there or if members of his staff will be available.

Speakers at the meeting include Wishman, who will present a budget overview; Carrie Fitzgerald, senior health policy associate with Child and Family Policy Center, will speak about the State Children's Health Insurance Program and children's health care; Lana Ross, executive director for Iowa Community Action Association, will speak about ICAA's programs; Jos Linn of RESULTS and Karen Ford of the Food Bank of Iowa will speak about food stamps and providing for the hungry in our communities; and Matt Tapscott of AFSCME will discuss the issues of child-care providers.

A "food stamp lunch" is being planned during the forum. The meal will be provided at no cost to event participants and will match as closely as possible the 98 cent per meal average benefit of food stamp recipients.

"While many members of Congress have been taking the 'Food Stamp Challenge' and living on a food-stamp budget for a week, our attendees will be asked to participate in just one meal," Wishman said.

Iowa Citizen Action Network is also encouraging those who live in Iowa's other congressional districts to contact appropriate members of Congress. Residents can find out who represents their districts by visiting Yahoo! News for an interactive form and map.

"We need Iowans to encourage their representatives to override any veto," Wishman added. "These programs -- like Head Start, food stamps and children's health care -- help kids learn and stay healthy. They've suffered deep cuts in past years and we need a budget that reflects are values of caring for all of our families and that will help communities thrive."

The forum will begin at noon in Meeting Room 3 at the Des Moines downtown public library, 1000 Grand Ave.

[Commentary] If there is one piece of advice given to parents that has remained solid through generations it is this: "Be consistent and follow through."

From the time our children begin to test their boundaries, pediatricians, guidance counselors, therapists and teachers all agree the best thing a parent can do is set limits and adhere to them consistently. If your child is expected to keep food at the dining room table or fill the pet dish each morning, it is your job as an adult and a parent to ensure the rules are followed -- even in times when it would be more convenient if they were broken.

Along those same lines, parents are told to only make threats they will actually carry out. For instance, don't tell your daughter she's going to be kept home from the big game on Saturday if you know in your heart you won't do it. Don't tell your son he won't be allowed to attend the camping trip if you know you're going to let him go regardless of his actions.

It is through these two methods of consistent and fair discipline that our children learn the much needed life lesson of actions having consequences. This lesson has, unfortunately, either not been taught to the current White House administration or it has been forgotten.

Yesterday, the President who three years ago demanded to know who in his administration broke the rules called a sentence handed down in the same case excessive. George W. Bush commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term. Libby was found guilty in March of four counts of perjury and obstruction in a case involving the outing of a covert government operative. The move was made when a U.S. District Judge -- a 2001 Bush appointee -- refused to allow Libby to remain free while appealing his case.

Let's say that I was called by the Girl Scouts and told officials believed that someone in my troop had committed a crime by releasing the secret recipe to thin mints. As troop leader, I went before the council and the press and announced my intention to "smoke the leaker out" and that I would be cooperating completely with authorities. During the course of the investigation, my co-leader's daughter is called in to testify and it becomes obvious to everyone involved that she knows more than she telling. What's worse, she is lying in order to keep investigators from the truth. Eventually, of course, the girl would face strict punishment from council investigators for her misconduct -- even if a direct line could never be drawn between the girl, the co-leader and the secret recipe.

If the council investigators decided the girl should be punished by removal from the troop for a certain period of time and I, as troop leader, intervened on her behalf, what message would I be sending the rest of the girls in my troop? What message would I be sending to the council and their investigators?

There is a reason why parenting is one of the hardest jobs on the planet. It isn't always easy and many times, if you do it well, you break your own heart. At the end of the day, however, it is more important for our children to understand the consequences of their actions than it is for us parents to bask in the immediate popularity that comes with being a rule breaker.

If we want to raise children who are contributing members of society, we have an obligation to teach them the rule of law and show them the consequences of breaking those laws. Just as looking away from the child with her hand in the cookie jar leads to gluttony, falsehoods and excess, looking away from this administration and its misuse of authority has led to gluttony, falsehoods and excess.

EE is typically not the blog you want to visit if you are searching for gloom and doom. While plenty of dire alerts cross my email inbox each day, I try very hard to sift through them and only bring the most relevant and legitimate to the front of the pile. That being said, I received a note this morning from Amanda with information and a link that I believe is worth some lines here.

On July 17, Pres. George W. Bush issued another one of his infamous executive orders, this one titled: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." Sounds like a good thing on the surface, right? Let's read on...

This order impacts four earlier executive orders:

...it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.

Granted, the entire document is written in legal-ease and isn't at all easy to follow, especially for any non-attorney. I will do my best to tell you what I read and understood; however, I encourage each of you to read it for yourselves and come to your own conclusions.

This document essentially provides the government power to take all of your property and assets -- and all of those that belong to your business as well (both "person" and "entity" are addressed in the order).

Who will make the determination if your stuff should go buh-bye? The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense (Section 1a).

Why would the determination be made? The document really doesn't say. "...any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing..."

Did you read those last six words? "...pose a significant risk of committing..." Read it again. In order to have your seized by the government, you will only need to be SUSPECTED of something.

Yes, it does indicate that you should pose a "significant risk" of "an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or, undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people" (and more listed in still more sub-sections of that last clause). The problem is, the document does not define what some of these vague purposes or effects might be.

In other words, we don't know if some one protesting the war -- perhaps someone who has not personally participated in violent protest, but has been present at an event where it did take place (real or made-up) -- could be found in violation of the executive order. An "act of violence" is not defined in the document.

And, quite frankly, I may be in violation right at this very moment because I'm telling you my thoughts on the order: Section 2(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Donations to certain groups appear to be blocked/banned in Section 4. And, in Section 5, we learn that there will be no prior notice given before funds are blocked. (Remember, we aren't talking about someone convicted of a crime, but someone the Secretary of the Treasury has determined "might" pose a risk.)

Finally, Section 6, outlines how the Secretary of the Treasury -- in consultation with the Sec. of State and the Sec. of Defense, although the exact meaning of "consultation" is never defined -- will be acting as law enforcement, judge and juror in all matters relating to this order:

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Does this plan without oversight and judgment without legal recourse sound like a good plan to you? If not, you need to know that Congress has 30 days from the date an executive order is published in the Federal Register to act.

Read it for yourself and make up your own mind. If you believe -- as I now believe -- that this is stinkier than five-day-old dog poo then contact your Congress critters and let them know!

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.

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.

Domestic wire tapping. Abu Ghraib. Phone calls claiming John McCain provided half the DNA for an illegitmate brown child. Equal pay. Elimination of the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach. Guantanamo. Pat Tillman. The "Patriot" Act. Rush to war. Falsehoods to make rush to war more efficient. Reclassifying the previously declassified. Katrina. Valerie Plame. Halliburton and no-bid contracts. Blackwater. Brushing off the International Court of Justice. Fallujah. Osama bin Laden. Citizens arrested for t-shirts. Diebold. Jack Abramoff. Voter purging. "Healthy" forests. "Clean" skies. My Pet Goat. Reclassifying government whistleblowers as "leakers." Extraordinary Rendition. Delaying reports showing students in Charter Schools performed less proficient than those in public schools. Re-Calculating the Charter School assessments when they looked bad. Ban on military women and dependents from obtaining abortions at military hospitals, even if they pay with their own funds, even if they were raped in the line of duty. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent. Nonexistent WMDs. Canning health care for our most needy. "Mission Accomplished." Jose Padilla. Loyalty Oaths at political events. Classifying fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs. Tainted Barbies. The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Redesigned OSHA workplace safety posters with small hotline numbers and no regional contact information. Enron. Terry Schiavo. Intelligent Design. Mike Brown. The Downing Street Memo. TALON. Coal Executive Richard Stickler and his troubling mine safety record given a recess appointment to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Jerry Thacker. "Bring it on." Ken Lay. Scooter Libby. "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." Former Wal-Mart attorney Paul DeCamp and his record of urging restrictions to the Fair Labor Standard Act's overtime pay given a recess appointment to head up the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. Harriet Myers. Samuel Alito. Jeff Gannon. Revoking rule to reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. Armstrong Williams. A fake turkey dinner. Karen Ryan reporting. Secrecy. Signing Statements. Mark Foley. Altered Health and Human Services reports on racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Global gag rule. Habeas Corpus.The Axis of Evil. Extended deployments. Repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. Walter Reed Medical Center. Crumbling infrastructure. Alberto Gonzalez. Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. Signing statements. K Street. Tom Delay. Revisions to Title IX interpretation. Faith-Based Initiatives. Ricin. The International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative. Anthrax. The Department of Health and Human Services illegally paying the salary of former Medicare chief Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire veteran Medicare actuary Richard Foster if he told Congress that the administration's Medicare prescription drug legislation would cost $100 billion more than the White House said. Abstinence-Only Sex Education. Elimination of the annual Equal Opportunity Survey by the Labor Department. The proposed Sunset Commission. No Child Left Behind. No School Left Funded. RNC email addresses for White House employees. RNC email servers purged. The so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Habitual audits of Advocates for Youth, STOP AIDS and SIECUS.

Americans, true to our historical indifference and patience, sit at a slow simmer while the rest of the world boils over. Pundits, activists and even administration supporters are wondering what will it take. What will be last straw to strike the camel's back and spark Americans to action?

While we all sit back -- in between peeling open our bags of chips, slurping our sodas, playing with our tainted Chinese-manufactured toys, and watching the latest reality show, of course -- here are a couple more to add to the outrage list.

Been Advocating for Peace? Canada Border Patrol Might Refuse Passage

Retired U.S. Army colonel and former diplomat Ann Wright was denied entry to Canada. Why? She and Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, were refused at the border because their names have been added to the FBI's National Crime Information Center database.

The two have taken part in several non-violent protests of the war -- Wright even quit her diplomat gig in opposition to the Iraq war -- but neither woman has ever been convicted of anything more serious than a misdemeanor. Both have previously visited Canada for anti-war meetings, often at the invitation of Canadian activist groups or political parties.

Further, the two activists met yesterday with a diplomat at the Canadian embassy in Washington. Tristan Landry, a spokesman for the embassy, said the two were given "no apology and no invitation to Canada."

Wright said they were told that they were "not even eligible for rehabilitation," a process that takes five years and requires fines to be paid.

The Strong Winds in Iowa? That's the White House Spinning.

It seems the Bush Administration was for torture both before and after they said they were against it. Hop over to the N.Y. Times to read about the latest Justice Department memo on "severe interrogations."

And, if this was actually a joke, the punch line would be the the Bush Administration's spinning. In December 2004, the Justice Department publicly declared torture as "abhorrent." Roughly two months later, a new opinion was issued -- but only on a need-to-know basis. The new document, according to the Times and the officials they interviewed, offered an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Later that same year, even as Congress moved to outlaw torture, the Justice Department put forth another secret document. The Times staff notes that most lawmakers did not know this document existed. (Wonder which ones did.)

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

...

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda, President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.’s secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or pouring water over a bound prisoner’s cloth-covered face to induce fear of suffocation.

But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the administration, President Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques — the details remain secret — and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas. The executive order was reviewed and approved by Mr. Bradbury and the Office of Legal Counsel.

But what really makes the White House spin the punchline of this sick joke is the public statements of "we do not torture" combined with Bush's own signing statements. He issued one of those in conjunction with the torture bill, indicating from the get-go that he wouldn't be bound by that law.

I guess the word torture has gone the way of sexual intercourse. That is, it all depends on your definition.

To date, I've only heard two candidates speak out against this latest outrage. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama gave it a one sentence allusion during his appearance in Waterloo yesterday. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, to my knowledge, has been the only of the presidential hopefuls to issue a formal statement:

"The law is crystal clear - torture is illegal. It is 'abhorrent' that the Bush Administration would publicly disavow torture, while its Office of Legal Counsel is secretly interpreting settled law to reach the opposite conclusion. It is imperative we understand the extent of this deception. The Office of Legal Counsel must release how many other secret opinions they have produced during the Bush Administration that justified violations of the Constitution, federal statutes, the laws of war, and international human rights.

"Congress's Constitutional authority is the power of the purse. And should the Justice Department not comply, I intend to use that authority by drafting legislation defunding the Office of Legal Counsel."

Senator, since we are in fact discussing my wallet, may I be one of the first to give you permission to slam it shut at will.

~~~Update - 4:09 pm~~~

I just received the following statement from Delaware Sen. Joe Biden:

“This is an outrage and an embarrassment to the nation and is further proof that you cannot trust this Administration. Before these memos were drafted, the Administration publicly denied their use of torture and now it is clear to all that they were not telling the truth.

”These abhorrent policies have made us less safe in the world. The shirking of responsibility by this White House, from blaming Abu Ghraib on lower-level officers and firing others for their own incompetent Iraq policies, is a disturbing pattern of behavior that must come to an end.

”We need a change of direction in America. The American people need a White House they can be proud of here at home and one that commands respect abroad. As President, I will make that change my first priority.”

Just five short months ago, Iowa native Sara M. Taylor bowed out of her appointment as White House political director, a position in which she answered directly to Karl Rove. Back then she said she was searching for normalcy. Yet, according to a document filed with the federal government at the end of August, Taylor intends to begin lobbying for Ames-based Renewable Energy Group, Inc. Specifically, she will seek to influence in the areas of energy and agriculture with the registration documents highlighting the Energy Savings Act of 2007, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, Energy and Advancement Act of 2007 (no link found), and Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.

Given that Taylor was in Washington, D.C. during the month of July, testifying before a Senate panel that was investigating the firings of several U.S. attorneys, her search for a life outside of the beltway was extremely short-lived.

That same month, Taylor was announced as a partner in BlueFront Group, a private sector advertising and public relations firm. Other firm partners are:

• Sam Dawson -- former National Republican Congressional Committee senior consultant and former senior political adviser to both President George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
• Patrick McCarthy -- former deputy communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and former communications consultant to Sen. Strom Thurmond's reelection campaign. He also served as a senior staff member for Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson.
• Mike McElwain -- former political director for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Jon Downs, an executive director in two states for Bush-Cheney 2000 and previous member of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Justice, serves as BlueFront's creative director.

While all of this may seem more than enough for any one person, the Washington Post reported just days ago that Taylor has signed on with "Designated Market Media, a leading Republican media consulting firm." Although this firm touts the same players as BlueFront, this agency handles political advertising. (BlueFront limits itself to corporate and nonpolitical contracts.)

There continues to be speculation about this new venture, which the Post credits with wins in "closely contested House races in Ohio, New Mexico and New York last cycle." Some believe that the company is the newly resurrected phoenix of Dawson McCarthy Nelson Media and that Taylor is taking over the reins for Terry Nelson, who was implicated during both a New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal in 2002 and as an unindicted co-conspirator in Tom DeLay's money-laundering scheme.

Nelson was since hired by Working Families for Wal-Mart and John McCain's Straight Talk America PAC. He was subsequently fired from the Wal-Mart organization after he was found to be connected with a controversial ad that ran against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee. In July, Nelson left the McCain campaign following a second quarter of weak fund raising.

A connection between the two marketing groups is further forged by an Associated Press article that announces Taylor's recent registration as a lobbyist. In the article, Randy Skoglund, a person described as a "principal with Revere Strategy Group LLC," is quoted as saying that Taylor is an employee of Renewable Energy Group. Skoglund was found during 2002 Minnesota court proceedings to be only playing the part of an independent contractor for Dawson McCarthy Nelson Media.

To complete the connection, however, the information provided by the Post about the successful House races must be followed. Two of these are extremely easy to track down:

Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, spent several thousand dollars with Dawson McCarthy Nelson Media. Pryce garnered 110,712 votes. Her challenger, attorney Mary Kilroy, received 109,657 votes.

In an article listing what he believes are the best ads of the 2006 campaign cycle, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza highlights an ad for Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico, and notes that Dawson McCarthy Nelson "made the ad and all of Wilson's spots -- some of the best commercials of the cycle." The final vote for the seat was 105,986 to 105,125. In addition, Wilson paid Dawson McCarthy Nelson at least $50,000.

The New York contest is much more difficult to come by. The closest race with a Republican victor was that of Jim Walsh. He defeated challenger Dan Maffei by a vote of 105,235 to 101,322. There are no campaign expenditures to Dawson McCarthy Nelson, but Walsh did pay nearly $1 million to Cookfair Media Inc.

Additional research turned up that Dawson McCarthy Nelson Media represented a total of 11 candidates during the 2006 election cycle -- none of which were running in the state of New York. Three of the candidates the firm represented -- David Kramer (Nebraska, U.S. Senate), Will McBride (Florida, U.S. Senate) and Bill Dix (Iowa, U.S. House) -- lost their bid during the primary contests. Of the remaining eight, the firm split with half winning and half losing their contests. Winners were Wilson in New Mexico, Pryce in Ohio, Peter Roskam in Illinois (House District 6) and Thelma Drake in Virginia (House District 2).

Since it might be of interest to Iowans, I'll note here that the firm represented Jeff Lamberti in his unsuccessful bid for House District 3. Other losses came in Colorado (Rick O'Donnell) and Wisconsin (Mark Green). The final candidate the firm represented was Texan Tom DeLay, who dropped out of the race following a successful primary.

There were three house races in New Mexico. Of those, Republicans won two. The only close race was Wilson's. In Ohio, 11 of the 18 Congressional seats were won by Republicans. Of those, only two were close races. Payne hired Dawson McCarthy Nelson while the other close winner, Jean Schmidt, worked with Wenzel Strategies out of Toledo, Ohio along with other smaller firms. The races in both Illinois and Virginia were equally close, 51 percent victories.

Given all of this I can only conclude that the Washington Post was incorrect when it stated that the states were New Mexico, Ohio and New York, and that Dawson McCarthy Nelson Media has been reborn as Designated Market Media.

What Taylor will or won't do next isn't going to be nearly as easy to figure out.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have issued a press release marking both 2007 as the deadliest year yet for American troops in Iraq and that, for the first time, 50 percent of Americans "strongly disapprove" of President George W. Bush. With these latest figures, Bush now beats former President Nixon's record.

"For years a majority of Iowans have opposed President Bush's reckless Iraq war policy which put more of our men and women in harm's way, and now, in the fifth year of war we have more troop deaths than ever," said Sue Dinsdale, Iowa field director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. "Iowans, like most Americans, have demanded a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, but President Bush and Senator [Chuck] Grassley have blocked efforts to end the war every step of the way. The ramifications of the so-called 'surge' policy are clear with this grim milestone. Iowans will not look fondly on Senator Grassley, who has backed Bush's policy over his own constituents' demands for an end to the war.

"As Senator Grassley makes plans to honor our veterans and their sacrifices on Veterans Day a few days from now, Iowans are urging him and President Bush to honor our troops by bringing them home safely from Iraq."

A USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 50 percent of Americans "strongly disapprove" of the President, for the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll. Nixon had held the previous record of 48 percent strong disapproval shortly before his impeachment hearings in 1974.

"Anger over President Bush's unpopular and reckless war policy is palpable in Iowa and across the country as reflected in his record disapproval ratings. When after five years of war your war policy is killing record numbers of your bravest men and women, it is long past time to change the course," added Dinsdale. "Leaders like Senator Grassley who follow President Bush and continue to back his endless war are setting themselves up for political extinction."

There were just a few flakes of snow blowing around when I got in the Jeep and began the drive from the Cedar Rapids area to Solon in Johnson County. The purpose of the drive was to cover a Clinton campaign stop featuring Pres. Bill Clinton.

I made good time on my way there (despite having to drop the teenage daughter off at a friend's home for a slumber party on my way out of town). But it was clear by the time I arrived that the weather was going to be a factor going home.

As with most campaign events, the entry ways into the high school parking lot were lined with campaign signs. Snow remained on the ground from the dumping we received a few days ago, but, by and large, the sidewalks were clear when I walked inside. Here's the scene when I left the parking lot a few hours later:

Author's note: I realize this photo does little to up my sympathy factor with fellow Iowans; however, when it comes to my southern family, I'm going to be able to milk this for weeks.

Even with the long and stressful drive home, it was worth it to see and hear Bill Clinton again. The first time I ever saw him speak was back when he was running for governor of Arkansas. His charisma and ability to connect individually regardless of the size of the crowd were evident then and have only improved as he has aged.

After nearly a year, it is now likely that Matt Michael Dummermuth, interim U.S. attorney for the northern district of Iowa and a native of Elgin, will face U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. The White House news service has reported that Dummermuth's official nomination for the position was sent to the Senate in December.

Dummermuth's appointment by President George W. Bush to replace retiring Charles W. Larson, Sr., came after a 2006 recommendation by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, a lawmaker for whom Dummermuth previously interned. The appointment also followed the retirement of then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Judi Whetstine, who was initially appointed as acting U.S. attorney for the district. Dummermuth was sworn in Jan. 30, 2007.

Nomination hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary have yet to be scheduled since, according to staff reports, certain paperwork has not yet been submitted. Among the items missing are "blue slips," forms from Iowa's senators that provide support of the nomination. Grassley's press office indicated his blue slip will be delivered Friday. A spokeswoman in Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin's office said Harkin is currently reviewing information and remains unsure if he will support the nomination.

Dummermuth, who at 34 is one of the youngest of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, has spent the past year stacking up a wealth of drug and gun convictions. He has spoken to several area school districts on the topic of Internet predators, an issue he has made into a focus of his tenure. His on-the-job training, however, hasn't necessarily spared him being soiled by the ongoing U.S. attorney appointment controversy.

The controversy stems from the 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act, legislation that enabled the president -- through the office of the attorney general -- to replace U.S. attorneys who had retired or resigned with long-term appointees that did not need to undergo confirmation by the Senate. Previously, such appointees could only serve for 120 days without confirmation. After that time period elapsed, district courts could extend the appointment or would make any necessary subsequent appointments until the Senate confirmed a nominee. The changes, however, allowed the appointees to serve indefinitely. As reauthorized, the Patriot Act effectively circumvented constitutionally-granted senatorial oversight of executive appointees.

Although the oversight loophole was closed in June 2007 when the clause within the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization was rescinded, several U.S. attorneys were already serving in indefinite interim roles. Dummermuth was one of them, and his appointment came under public scrutiny.

There are unique differences between U.S. Attorneys who ended up in the direct fire of the controversy and Dummermuth, who primarily remained on the fringes. First, Dummermuth replaced Larson, an older public servant whose retirement was not terribly surprising. While Whetstine's subsequent retirement after being named the acting U.S. Attorney for the northern district is suspect, those close to her have said the move was not politically prompted.

Dummermuth's resume includes a two-year stint at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice as well as a one-year position in the U.S. attorney's office in the eastern district of Virginia. He served in private practice in Cedar Rapids and worked with Judge David Hansen of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to his diploma from Iowa State, Dummermuth graduated from Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass.

There are, however, direct links between Dummermuth and the Bush administration. In addition to small campaign contributions, Dummermuth was one of three field staff for the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign in Iowa during 2000. He directed campaign activities in the eastern portion of the state while Scott Shuman worked central and Grant Young worked western Iowa. The three answered directly to political director Craig Schoenfeld.

In addition, Dummermuth's wife, Rebecca, previously served in the Bush administration's Department of Labor as special assistant to the solicitor (then Eugene Scalia). She also worked in the White House, serving as associate director for legal affairs in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In that capacity, she often served as a spokeswoman and advocate for faith-based initiatives. In a 2004 article in the Hawaii-Reporter, Rebecca was reported as explaining the constitutional guidelines of such funding and same-faith hiring practices. The topic was not new to Rebecca, who had previously served as a legal counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm that protects the free expression of religion. Also, as lead articles editor of the Washington and Lee Law Review, she published a column entitled "If We Recant, Could We Qualify?" that examined the exclusion of religious providers from state social-service voucher programs.

Rebecca left employment with the White House after the couple's son was born in order to become a homemaker. She told Christian Broadcast News that "a child is eternity, and investing in him is investing in eternity." The Dummermuths are expecting a second child this spring.

As late as this past summer, Dummermuth was listed as one of 30 members of the board of trustees for Southeast Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Wake Forest, N.C. He was elected by the Southern Baptist Convention and charged with control and governance of SBTS, Inc. His term expires in 2010. The chief function of the board is to establish policy concerning the operation of the institution and approve the academic programs offered by the school.

It remains unclear why the White House chose this particular time to submit a formal nomination for the Iowa post. Dummermuth, who oversees 25 attorneys and 30 additional district staff members, could have served as interim U.S. attorney indefinitely given the timing of his appointment. No other U.S. attorneys were included with Dummermuth in the notice of nomination. However, if confirmed, the nomination does stipulate a "term of four years." Without confirmation, the next president could have easily nominated a different attorney for the post. Had that nominee won Senate confirmation, Dummermuth would have been immediately replaced. Still, U.S. attorneys, according to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, do "serve at the pleasure of the president" and can be removed despite agreed-upon terms of office.