Energy is a hot topic in Washington, and there are more than a few ideas on the table trying to convince consumers that Congress can save them money and make us energy independent now.  The truth is this is a long term problem that requires not only a major shift in consumer behavior, bu  more importantly, marketplace penetration of revolutionary advancements in energy technology.  That's a tall order - but one that a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, could help to fill.

Despite the very valuable research already being done at DOE and in the industry, I am not convinced that our current energy R&D system alone will get us much further down this road.  Between bureaucratic inertia in federal research, private companies rightfully protecting their corner of the markets, and the immense scale of the marketplace, any revolutionary change (and there will have to be many) in our energy paradigm will require an unprecedented effort.  I believe we should start that new effort by giving the best and brightest the flexibility and resources to approach the problem in a whole new way.

There are models that we can look to in crafting that effort into a new program at DOE.  Congress can cherry-pick the best organizational and operational ideas from examples such as DARPA at the Department of Defense and In-Q-Tel at the CIA to do business in a way that breeds new life into the existing energy research efforts.

Some ask, "Do we really need a new agency for energy research?"  I say to that, "Are we more or less dependent on foreign sources of oil than we were 6 years ago?  Is it any cheaper to drive your car and power your home and business?"  I think we all know the answer to that.  So let's think about this a little differently.  Establish ARPA-E.

Once again, Democrats are demonstrating a remarkable ability  to distort the facts as they attempt to paint their confusing Iraq policy in a better light.

While Democrats would like to compare their "cut and run" agenda to General Casey's strategic military plans, it's simply not a valid comparison.
General Casey is an accomplished military official who is leading our troops to victory in Iraq.  As a critical advisor to our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for developing multiple recommendations regarding our future involvement in Iraq. Do Democrats honestly believe that our military commanders on the ground have only one plan for victory? If so, they are more out of touch than I could have ever imagined.

Although Democrats would like to leave Iraq immediately, President Bush and General Casey will not support troop withdrawal from Iraq before U.S. troops complete their mission. The difference between the two approaches is critical.  Democrats' Iraq strategy equals retreat and defeat while President Bush and Republicans remain dedicated to achieving victory in Iraq.

Posted by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
We’ve seen what a failure the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been. From 1993 to 2004, the United States lost more than 1 million jobs due to growing trade deficits with our NAFTA partners, while workers in Mexico have seen their real wages erode.

But that didn’t stop the Bush administration from twisting arms in Congress to pass by a bare one-vote margin the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)—yet another deal that looks out for the interests of Big Business but includes few protections for workers’ rights or the environment.

Now, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA) is on the table, and Congress should reject this latest expansion of NAFTA’s failed model. This model has accelerated the loss of good jobs here while exacerbating poverty and social disparities in our trading partners.

The lack of effective labor provisions in OFTA is particularly significant in light of the recent New York Times article revealing egregious labor abuses in Jordan—a nation with which the United States has a free trade agreement. These violations include human trafficking, 20-hour workdays, and widespread failure to pay back wages. Worse—the Oman FTA contains even weaker labor provisions than the Jordan FTA.

Congress must oppose the Oman agreement and send a message to the American people and to the world: America’s workers want trade pacts that don’t ignore fundamental human rights.

As a former journalist I have the utmost respect for the freedom of the press. But the New York Times has repeatedly abused that freedom by publishing classified information to the detriment of our national security, in the process putting lives in danger and possibly breaking the law. Revoking the congressional credentials of Times reporters does not restrict their rights - it merely restricts their access to the Capitol Complex. Let's not forget that the New York Times is our guest at the Capitol. The paper has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to have a presence here. The paper has worn out its welcome and its time for them to go.

This Administration is angry that the media leaked the story about it snooping into the bank records of millions of Americans. It supporters in Congress want to formally condemn the New York Times. What a bunch of baloney. It is about time the media did its job of protecting the public interest. If the media and this Congress had shown some independence from the party line of this Administration, the claims of WMDs would have been dismissed, and fact there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 would have been well established and we would not have gone to war against Iraq.

A few years ago, a movie, Wag the Dog, told of how a US administration misused its communications power to create phony stories to put the nation into an international conflict. This Administration not only wagged the dog in Iraq, but, with the help of its fabricators at the Rendon and Lincoln groups, it has wagging a whole kennel.

In a free society the media cannot be a lap dog of any Administration. The First Amendment states, 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech', except of course, under this Administration.

The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow, and middle class families are struggling to make ends meet. Many can't afford health insurance, let alone homeowner's, renters' or flood insurance. Congress must begin to take into consideration all the needs of our constituents, especially low-income families, during natural disasters. It is my hope that through the GAO study, we can set the stage to provide low-income families living in flood prone areas with discounted flood insurance.

These hearings on illegal immigration and border security are six years late and millions of dollars short. With complete Republican control of legislation and enforcement of the law for six years, you would think that a party calling so vigorously for border security and enforcement of immigration law could have solved the problem of illegal immigration by now. But the Republican Party seems to be all talk on this subject. Today's Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing was just another in the long list of hearings held and planned by this Republican-led Congress that produce absolutely no solutions to a problem the American public cares about.

I am disappointed that the Supreme Court is endorsing the idea that professional, partisan politicians can overhaul their state’s Congressional map whenever they feel it will benefit them personally. This will lead to a free-for-all through which the party in power in any state capitol at any time can negatively impact the people’s business in Washington. Partisan gerrymandering promotes ideologically extreme views, shrinking the political center in Washington. Few in Congress are willing to work together to accomplish the goals the American people expect us to accomplish. Read more...

The 9th Circuit is the most overburdened court we have in the country and it cannot effectively serve the geographic region it now covers. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee is taking up the issue and commend Chairman Specter for moving ahead with a hearing. I am hopeful that there will be a prompt mark-up on the bill. The 9th Circuit is just too large to properly service the residents of Idaho and other states in the West. Idahoans and others who are now included in the 9th Circuit will be better served with this change that will provide smaller, more efficient courts. I have been committed to this structural reform for many years and look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the legislation is enacted into law.