Senators Add the Ornaments and Trimmings

The term “Christmas tree” has its own special meaning on Capitol Hill. It usually refers to a bill that has been decorated with “ornaments,” loaded up with special goodies for the folks back home.

But the term is particularly apt this week, as Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, works to have a vote on a heavily festooned health care bill by Christmas Eve.

They decorations include these:

The “Louisiana Purchase,” as it is being called, a provision for Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who obtained an extra $300 million in Medicaid funds for her state.

The Hawaii exemption, a measure that allows the state to keep its own health care system.

A break on the excise tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans for people in the 17 states where premiums are the highest. (The measure was initially intended to apply to the 10 states with the highest premiums, a Senate aide said, but some other senators wanted in and the number was bumped to 17.)


An exemption for small makers of medical devices from a new tax — relief that was sought by Democratic senators from states including Indiana, Massachusetts and Minnesota, where such device makers are based.

Favors for Nebraska as yet undescribed, sought by Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, for his home state as he demanded that the bill contain strict anti-abortion language.

Supporters of the bill say these sugar plums are a small price to pay to round up the necessary votes to pass landmark legislation that will result in most Americans having health insurance, many with subsidies, and will end some of the insurance industry’s most discriminatory practices.

Lavish Lobbying

But these ornaments are mere baubles compared with some of the neon measures that some lawmakers and lobbyists have fought to keep out of the bill.

Most prominent was the demand by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, that leaders drop two provisions that the insurance industry and big business had been lobbying vociferously against.

One, of course, was a government-run insurance plan, or public option, which would have competed with private insurance companies. The other was an expansion of Medicare to include some people ages 55 to 64, a change that hospitals and doctors fought because it would have meant taking care of more patients at lower Medicare rates.

Insurers also beat back an attempt to strip the industry of a partial antitrust exemption that it has long enjoyed.

To achieve these goals, the lobbying campaign on health care legislation has been lavish, even by Capitol Hill’s inflated standards.

Final spending amounts for the year will not be known until mid-January. But in the first nine months of the year, health care lobbyists spent at least $396 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money on elections and policy.

Because the lobbying intensified in the fourth quarter as both the House and Senate prepared their final bills, the year-end total is likely to shatter the previous record for money spent on a single issue in a single year.

Perhaps not surprisingly, that record was set just last year, when health care lobbyists spent $486 million in anticipation of the legislative action this year.

“If spending this quarter remains on pace with the first three quarters — just on pace — lobbying in the health care sector will obliterate the high-water mark that it set last year,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center.

But even those figures do not give the full picture of the flood of cash funneled into lobbying on health care in 2009.

For example, the center’s health care figures do not include lobbying by the insurance industry. Mr. Levinthal said the center could not isolate the amount the industry spent only on health insurance, as opposed to other forms of insurance.

Nor do the figures include spending by groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has multiple issues pending before Congress but led the effort to kill the public option.

Some of the lobbying, especially in the early days, was done on behalf of remaking the health care system. But over all, more has been spent against it. Because Democrats control both houses, they have received more money than Republicans.

Corporate Glee

The insurance companies were probably among the merriest of industries last week. Because the legislation mandates that everyone buy insurance, those companies stand to gain 30 million new customers — and there will be no government plan to compete with.

But the drug companies were certainly joyful too. So far, they have kept intact a deal with the White House to bar the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere. In exchange, the drug companies agreed to give up $80 billion over 10 years through discounts and rebates.

Some Senators fought the pharmaceutical deal, noting that $80 billion represents only about 2 percent of the $3.6 trillion that Americans are expected to spend on drugs in the next 10 years. But the Senate effectively voted last week to keep the drug pact in place.

The pharmaceutical industry has spent more money by far than any other on lobbying in the first nine months of the year, laying out $199 million. That is also the single highest amount that any industry has ever spent on lobbying in a nine-month period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Citizens who do not normally pay attention to Congressional gift exchanges may have been galled at the process, particularly with the health care of the nation’s citizens and one-sixth of its economy at stake.

But they will see more maneuvering in the weeks ahead, as lobbyists seek to ensure that the measures they kept out of the Senate bill will also be excluded from the final bill that the Senate produces in conference with the House.

On Capitol Hill, decorating the Christmas tree is always in season.

Source:prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/

The Iran Lobby's War on Voice of America

A series of internal emails and documents from the National Iranian American Council, headed by Iranian national Trita Parsi, released as part of the discovery process in a lawsuit initiated by NIAC, reveal a major effort by the group to "clean house" at VOA's Persian-language service of Voice of America. Emails show NIAC using its muscle on Capitol Hill, aggressively lobbying individual members of Congress, to impose greater oversight over the radio station including "an independent review of the organization" to address what NIAC considered "poor journalism" and declining credibility.

But the group's emails show that NIAC was far less concerned about VOA's impact on Iran than about its impact on NIAC. The leadership at NIAC perceived VOA's reporting as a threat to its own credibility, and they were determined to prevent their critics from having a voice on the station. NIAC officials used two strategies. First, they sent cease and desist letters to VOA threatening legal action if the network continued "airing the views of a fabulist with malicious intent." The alleged fabulist was Hassan Daeoleslam, the man whom NIAC has since sued for defamation (the case is still pending) leading to the release of these internal documents.

On February 3, 2009, Siamak Namazi, a close confidant of Parsi, wrote to Jeffrey Trimble, a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees the operations of VOA and Radio Farda:


Dear Mr. Trimble,

Once again VOA has chosen to bring Mr. Hassan Daeoleslam at its guest and once again he makes a slanderous claim that my father and my business associate – Mssrs Baquer Namazi and Bijan Khajehpour – are fronts for the Iranian government.

I have brought the matter to your attention in the past, stressing that such comments not only hard [sic] the reputation of respectable democrats, but also put them in direct danger in Iran. I told you in detail how after Daeoleslam’s fictitious claims against me I was subjected to problems in Iran and also how it harmed my reputation in the Iranian community. We spoke at length about this issue when we met in August 2007 and you promised to look into it.

I am once again asking the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to make it known to VOA, which falls under your umbrella of responsibility, that it cannot just air slanderous garbage at will. You have been served several notices about the harm that such acts have brought in the past and is likely to bring in the future. BBG and VOA will be held responsible if any harm comes to my family and I due to such irresponsible behavior. I once again urge you to pay greater attention to the programming at VOA and to cease and desist from airing the views of a fabulist with malicious intent.

Here is a link to the VOA program in question: http://www.voanews.com/wm/voa/nenaf/pers/pers1730vSAT.asx

I expect immediate action to rectify this situation, specifically by barring VOA from bringing Mr. Daeoleslam on air. Consider this a formal complaint which can be used as evidence of serving notice of harm in a court of law. While my family and I do not desire to make a legal issue out of this matter, we reserve all right if you fail to take adequate measures and continue to allow Mr. Daeoleslam to air his malicious commentary.

Sincerely,

Siamak Namazi


So NIAC wanted one of its critics barred from ever appearing on the government funded network. The left often gripes about imagined efforts by the "Israel Lobby" to silence its critics. Here we have the Iran Lobby literally threatening media outlets with legal action if they continue to give voice to a NIAC critic.

Likewise, NIAC sent two cease and desist letters to the Washington Times threatening legal action if the paper published Eli Lake's story that first reported these internal emails and which raised serious questions about the legality of NIAC's activities, specifically its claims that it is not engaged in lobbying and therefore does not need to register as a 501(c)4 rather than its current tax-exempt 501(c)3 status.

Of course, 501(c)3 groups are supposed to engage in education. Was it education or lobbying when NIAC engaged in efforts to bring the hammer down on VOA with the help of members of Congress who were well disposed to their cause?

On September 11, 2007, Emily Blout, NIAC's legislative director, sent an email to Celes Hughes, an aide to Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. Blout writes that "Per our conversation this afternoon, I am sending some background information regarding the Iran democracy funding included in HR 2764." Blout's email makes a series of allegations against VOA, asserting that "VOA has struggled to find experienced staff and has instead hired political activists with loyalty to their agenda rather than to the VOA mandate." Further, Blout says that "According to insiders at VOA, this has led to its loss of credibility among the Iranian public."

However, Blout wants to be clear: "This is not to say the US should not promote democracy in Iran, rather it should employ other means towards this end." There are two such "other means" suggested by Blout: "Lift US sanctions on NGO activities" and "Reinvigorate VOA Persian’s credibility by cleaning house."

Further emails reveal that NIAC's war against VOA was a top agenda item for the group -- right alongside its fight against new sanctions on Iran -- in its contacts with numerous members of Congress. After lunch with Markus Rose, an aide to Rep. Barney Frank, Blout follows up with an email that starts off with some flattery about Rose's knowledge of Iran and then proceeds,


Two things:

1) I’ll be sending you information on NGO to NGO exchanges, Voice of America Persian (VOA), and sanctions on humanitarian aid (it is illegal for US citizens to give more than $100 to an orphanage in Tehran for example) shortly. Let me know if you think of anything else you’d like information on.

2) I wanted to make a correction. H.R. 2347, which your boss sponsored, does not include a provision that prohibits export of civilian aircraft parts. However, HR 1400, which your boss co-sponsored, does. It is my understanding that the counterpart to HR 1400 in the Senate- S.970- is getting ready to move (mid-spring). This presents a great opportunity for your boss to a) insert language into HR 2347 saying that humanitarian exports, including exports relating to civilian aviation, cannot be prohibited by any new or existing law, or b) for your boss to make sure that the provision barring export of civilian aircraft parts is stripped from HR 1400 during conference. (Sec. 203.1 in the House, Sec 7b.2 in the Senate).

I cannot emphasize enough how important is for the US to make clear that sanctions are not directed or intended to hurt the Iranian people. It is the Iranian government that is to blame. Expressing a “sense of congress” or giving $10 million for exchanges is not enough. It is congress’ responsibility, in my view, to do everything in its power to ensure that the Iranian people do not suffer at our hands and are not isolated from the rest of the world. It also the US’s responsibility to ensure that Iranian planes, which are US made and aging, do not fall out of the sky for lack of replacement parts.


Smells like lobbying. (What's more, there are reasons for those sanctions on airplane parts, and Parsi's old boss Rep. Bob Ney went to jail for violating them.)

Here is another email from Blout, this one debriefing NIAC leadership on her day of meetings on the Hill:


Thank you for joining us for the meeting on democracy funding yesterday. Your commentary and insight was extremely valuable. The following is a summary of all of yesterday’s meetings. Please make any additions/corrections necessary.

The meeting with Ven Neralla from Rep. Barbara Lee’s office was positive, although the discussion was not as focused as we would have liked on the democracy funding. When I follow-up with Ven today with the promised information on sanctions (Ivan Eland’s report, the report by Dewey Ballantine (commissioned by Jake Colvin’s group), NIAC’s analysis of HR 1400, and the report by Terror Free Tomorrow), I will reiterate our message on the democracy funding.

I think the meeting with the appropriations staffer from Nita Lowey’s office went well. Trita and I were pleased to find Steve Lopes, who works specifically on the democracy program funding, willing to consider our concerns and suggestions. He asked that we get back to him with information about how other countries have approached democracy funding in Iran.

After you departed, Trita and I met with Paul Grove, minority clerk for the Senate state and foreign operations sub-committee (Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)). Trita and Paul hit it off right away. We were delighted to find Mr. Grove’s views in line with our own, as he has had extensive knowledge of the problems posed by explicit “democracy” funding programs enacted by congress in the past and present, most recently in the case of Egypt. He was extremely critical of the state department’s administration of middle east democracy initiatives such as MEPI and said such operations/funding would be better left to the National Endowment for Democracy (as that was what it was created for). As for what could be done, he brought up the idea of “burying the money” in the greater context of funding for the Middle East, rather than specifically appropriating it to “democracy programs in Iran”. Specifically, he talked about providing NED “not withstanding authority” to appropriate funding for Iran- thus deflating the role of the State department and USAID. He also raised the possibility of including a “blanket waiver” for non-profit NGO exchanges between the US and Iran. He asked me to identify and analyze all of the provisions of law necessary for inclusion in such a waiver. Hopefully, I’ll have this analysis to him soon.

Following the meeting with Paul, I attended a meeting with two staffers, Chris Homan, Foreign Policy Legislative Assistant, and Reema Dodin, Legislative Aide, from Senator Dick Durbin’s office. Durbin (D-IL) is the assistant majority leader in the Senate and sits on the state and foreign operations sub-committee. He is also the co-sponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S970).
This meeting was also very productive. Homan used to work for USAID and his wife works for NED. Homan was very responsive to our concerns and pointed out that this had been a problem in regards to other countries in the past. He said it was important to get a meeting with Tim Rieser, the majority clerk on the sub-committee (Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) ) and said we could use his name to get one. He also expressed interested in including a provision in HR1400 that would lift sanctions on NGO-NGO exchanges. He said he would be willing to pitch our argument to reduce or remove the democracy funding appropriation (or to take other positive measures) to the Senator, provided that he felt he had all the necessary information to make his case. He asked me to get back to him with a summary of the cultural exchange programs currently being conducted, including what types of exchanges are being done (not just those conducted by NGOs) and what is and what is not allowed under current law.

I also attended a meeting in the morning with Tim Morrissey and Peter Frosch from Representative Betty McCullum’s office. McCullum is on the House sub-committee and voted ‘yes’ on Iran sanctions. Other than that, she has not been active on Iran. Frosch worked on the state and foreign opps bill when it was being debated by the House, but was unaware of our concerns and the problems with VOA. He asked me to provide him with a breakdown of the Iran-related funding in the bill as well as some numbers on VOA Persian listenership historically and compared to other broadcasters in Iran (such as BBC). He also said to keep him up to date on who else from the committee is on-board, and said that the congresswomen might be able to make a few calls to members (say,when its in conference).


Keep in mind, this is an organization that claims on its tax forms that it DOES NOT engage in lobbying. Moreover, all of the group's efforts seems focused on preventing additional sanctions, eliminating U.S. democracy funding initiatives, and destroying the Voice of America's Persian service and Radio Farda. The regime couldn't come up with a better set of priorities for NIAC, which may explain why so many people are wondering on behalf of whom NIAC is working.

Source:weeklystandard.com/