The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

On Tuesday, a train derailed in East Rochester, just a few hundred feet from the Northern border of the 29th. As a member of the House Transportation Committee, Randy Kuhl is all over it, calling for hearings and issuing statements.

The fallout from the loss of earmarks has begun. Today's Rochester Democrat and Chronicle has a long report on the impact of lost pork. While he laments the possible loss of funding, Kuhl says that "the system has been totally abused and needs to be corrected".

Kuhl continues to refine his position on Iraq. This puts him in a delicate position. As Rochesterturning reports, Kuhl's latest press conference was full of qualifications and revisionist history. When asked whether he's changing his position on Iraq, Kuhl said the following:

“I’ve always felt I was standing on my own and that I was mischaracterized,” Rep. Kuhl said. “The general public in my district saw through that,” he added.

That's nonsense. Here's his campaign position on Iraq:

The new government of Iraq is continuing to make progress, with the Iraqi Security Force due to take over security in all 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year, alleviating the burden of the United States and Multinational Forces. The Iraqi Army and police forces’ increased participation has contributed to security and stability, which has, in turn, sustained Iraq's political progress.

During the campaign, Kuhl tried to hide behind the fact that he wasn't in Congress for the vote on the war to straddle the fence when pushed. However, his public pronouncements, such as the one quoted above, were consistently (and unrealistically) rosy. In the debates, he tried to leverage his trip to Iraq to hint that the situation on the ground was better than the reports in the media. It's not a mischaracterization to say that he followed the Republican playbook on Iraq -- it's a fact that almost lost him the election.

In the same press conference, Kuhl also tried to spin the Democrats' Hundred Hours as a failure:

Congress is not moving very fast... Not one bill has gone to the President for his signature. This Congress has done nothing in the first three weeks.

Well, the House (not Congress) passed 6 no-brainers that had been languishing for years, and Kuhl voted for 4 of them. That seems like progress to me.

Randy Kuhl and four of his Republican colleagues sent a letter yesterday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposing the Pentagon's stop-loss policy. Stop-loss extends soldiers' tours beyond the originally-announced length.

The letter addresses stop-loss for all branches of the service (guard, reserve and active-duty). In a press release, Kuhl calls the program a "hidden draft" and says

Our guardsmen and reservists sign a contract to serve the nation for a specific period of time. The nation should honor that contract by not calling up our troops for longer than the time they initially agree to serve ...

Others who signed the letter were Republican Congressmen Ramstad (MN-3), LaTourette (OH-14) and Shays (CT-4). Ramstad and LaTourette are on record opposing the surge. Shays is wishy-washy: his support depends on the fine print.

Kuhl appears to be dipping his toe into the waters of opposition. Since we don't have enough troops to escalate in Iraq without stop-loss, opposing that policy is tantamount to opposing the surge. Another Republican in the New York delegation, John McHugh (NY-23), is on record against an increase in funding for the war. McHugh's position is especially significant since his district includes Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division. Kuhl has not gone as far as McHugh. Like Shays, he may end up opposing fine points of Bush's policy without voting against it. Votes are what count, and it will be interesting to see how far Kuhl is willing to go

Text of the letter after the break:

We are writing with respect to the President's plan to surge 21,000 troops to Iraq over the coming months, and specifically how the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to provide the manpower necessary to reach this troop level.

While we may have differing views on the President's plan, we share his desire both for a successful outcome to the war in Iraq and his commitment to the brave men and women that so honorably served our nation. It is in this regard we express our deep concern DOD finds it necessary to utilize stop-loss to meet our manpower needs. As you work with the President and the branches of the military, we urge you in strongest terms to limit the use of this policy.

When soldiers deploy for a tour abroad, they and their families literally count the days until their return home. Due to a variety of reasons, we are extending tours and recapturing those who have sought to retire and leave the military. This policy harms morale, places an undue burden on the families of soldiers, and damages the military leadership's credibility. We believe this policy will harm recruitment efforts.

In addition, while DOD has utilized stop-loss frequently throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom, we noted last week's announcement by Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace that the Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time reserve components can be required to serve on active duty. This announcement concerns us.

While our citizen-soldiers have responded admirably to their increased role in meeting our military's manpower needs, the policy change extending the cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan war beyond 24 months betrays their trust, separates families and threatens to devastate the likelihood that active duty soldiers will follow-up their service with time serving in the Reserves.

The bottom line is our troops and their families deserve realistic estimates about the length of their deployment. If a deployment is for twelve months, then have them serve for twelve months and no longer. If it is for fifteen months, then have them serve fifteen months and no longer. We urge the Department to take all reasonable steps to reduce the number of stop-loss extensions.

Randy Kuhl has a weekly telephone press conference. Most reporters in the 29th seem to use it for background, but the Hornell Evening Tribune covers it faithfully. This week's story shows Kuhl is concerned about two things: undue haste in the passage of the 100 hours legislation, and his vote against stem cell research.

Kuhl points out that the ethics reform package includes a mistake in the wording of the section intended to prohibit travel in corporate jets. In the current legislation, the wording could be interpreted as a complete ban on travel on non-governmental airplanes. Kuhl uses this as evidence that the Democrats' should not have circumvented the normal committee process when passing the first legislation of the 110th Congress.

Kuhl's position is consistent with his party. Every major vote in the 110th has been preceded by a party-line vote seeking to refer the legislation to committee. Once that vote fails, a few Republicans join with the Democrats to pass the bill in question. Though I agree with Kuhl on the general principle that legislation should be reviewed by committee, the first 100 hours bills are a bunch of no-brainers that have generally been well-reviewed and heavily debated in previous Congresses. If the Democrats continue with the policy of prohibiting referral to committee, then Republicans have a legitimate gripe, just as the Democrats did when the Republicans employed similar measures to advance their agenda when they were in the majority.

On the stem cell issue, Kuhl's latest position is that he is for embryonic stem cell research that doesn't involve the destruction of embryos. When science is able to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying them, he'll support the legislation.

Nobody seems to have asked Kuhl the obvious question: If destruction of embryos is so bad, why is in-vitro fertilization (IVF) allowed? Hundreds of thousands of embryos die each year as a result of IVF, yet most right-to-life advocates accept this collateral damage as the price of helping infertile couples to have a baby.

Kuhl and others believe that the right to conceive is important enough to kill embryos. The right to research a promising cure for a number of deadly and debilitating diseases is not. This position makes no sense.

Randy Kuhl's first reaction to Bush's new Iraq plan is that it is better than doing nothing. Kuhl also thinks that Bush should engage Iran and Syria diplomatically, and pledges continued support: "Kuhl said he will continue to support the president's plan with the expectation that troops will gradually be moved out of the region within the next year and a half." I don't see how Kuhl's expectation is consistent with the plan announced Wednesday, though he's certainly not the only Congressman who wants us to start leaving Iraq before the next election.

In other Iraq-related news, Kuhl was present yesterday with the family of Corporal Jason Dunham, a Marine killed in Iraq, for the posthumous presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Bush. Corporal Dunham lost his life after he used his body to shield two of his men from the explosion of grenade. He grew up in Scio, a small town in Allegany County. Kuhl also sponsored legislation to rename the Scio Post Office to honor Cpl Dunham.

Randy Kuhl has retained the same committee assignments that he held during his first term: Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, and Education and Labor. In addition, Kuhl was named a Deputy Minority Whip.

Deputy Whip is the lowest rung of the leadership ladder. The role of the whip is to "whip up" votes and to disseminate information among other members. According to the Congressional Research Service [pdf], when the Democrats were in the minority, they had a dozen Deputy Whips, led by six Senior Deputy Whips. When the Republicans were in the majority, they had 17 deputy whips and 49 assistant whips.

Most of this week's media focus was on the spectacle of Nancy Pelosi's elevation to speaker. Nevertheless, Randy Kuhl was able to get a couple of his observations published.

The Olean Times-Herald reports that Randy's hard at work on a couple of projects, including the expansion of Route 219 and West Valley cleanup. In this story, Kuhl portrays himself as ready to compromise to serve his district.

The West Valley bill is a $1 billion authorization [...] I hope the New York senators can move it through their (chamber) and help me with the Democratic leadership in the House. I’m willing to give up sponsorship if it means passage.

Kuhl also says that he's in charge of a "shrinking pot" now that he's a minority member, but “I’m still going to have to deliver for my district.”

Finally, Syracuse Channel 10's report includes this quote from Kuhl:

The [D]emocrats have control. They can pass bills in this house. They can pass bills in the Senate. So, they have the complete responsibility, number one, and the power to adopt and set policy in this country going ahead. They have two years to show the American public that they are for change.

Nothing surprising here. Kuhl's strategy of concentrating on getting funding for his district and, for the most part, portraying himself as a spectator in the squabbles between the Republicans and Democrats got him re-elected. He's going to stick with it during his second term.

WHAM-TV has a skeptical take on the impact of the one-year moratorium on earmarks in the 110th Congress. Both Randy Kuhl and James Walsh (NY-25) are quoted in the piece bemoaning the loss of funding for projects in the region. Kuhl believes that the earmarks are important, because "you have to have economic development".

WHAM's story features a list of earmarks. These include money for the Monroe County Water Authority and the Erie Canal, which causes WHAM to ask the question: why do these projects, which are ostensibly already funded by taxpayer money, need earmarked funding?

Though WHAM is unable to get the Water Authority's answer to the question, I'll offer mine: the earmark process is part of the machine politics practiced by majorities in both parties. Though "machine" usually refers to the ability of a political organization to turn out votes, it also refers to the interlocking set of relationships between local, state and federal officeholders. By using a combination of earmarks and regular funding to finance projects for the Thruway and Water authorities, legislators at all levels are able to assert greater control and to glean far more personal credit for even the most minor capital projects.

Instead of saying that "I voted for federal support of the Thruway Authority, and the Authority financed improvements to the park at your local lock", the legislator can say "I was personally responsible for the $115K needed to put a new playground in at Lock 42, because of my personal commitment to the children in my district." The difference is huge. By allowing Members of Congress to take credit for even minor projects in their districts, earmarks play a key role in personalizing politics and entrenching incumbents. Any idiot can vote for an appropriation for the Thruway Authority. It takes a special and powerful politician to personally obtain funding for a new park.

Louise Slaughter (NY-28) calls most of the earmarks "frivolous". Perhaps some are, but Walsh and Kuhl have a point: there's going to be some pain in the transition back to traditional funding. Whether that pain is something voters will hold against the Democrats, who cut out the earmarks, or the Republicans, who were responsible for letting them get out of hand, isn't clear to me. Based on this story, I think Walsh and Kuhl are betting that voters will resent the Democrats for taking away their pork.

Precious little is happening in the 29th during the holidays.

In the euphemism watch department, Randy Kuhl was one of the signatories of a bi-partisan letter to Eliot Spitzer, urging him to support a "woody biomass" power generation plant near Ellicottville. "Woody biomass" is the shiny new name given to trees and branches: apparently "Utilizing Woody Biomass" sounds a lot more high-tech than "burning wood". According to a GAO report [pdf], it is cleaner than coal, but more labor-intensive and harder to obtain.

In the pork watch department, Kuhl announced still more Homeland Security grants to local fire departments.

Today's front-page story in the Washington Post details the funding mess left by the 109th Congress. The Republican's last spending authorization bill left just enough money for the government to run until Februrary, and only 2 of the 11 necessary appropriation bills were passed. Along with the Republican inaction, the Democrats' cancellation of earmarks will also leave a few useful programs without money in 2007.

Eric Massa and Rochesterturning have both written about this earlier, focusing on the cowardice and irresponsibility of the Republicans. While that's certainly the most important angle of the story, the Post coverage also shows why it's so hard to be a reformer in Washington. When Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel cut earmarks, they also cut $3 million for AIDS and homelessness in Pelosi's district, as well as $3 mil for the "Charles Rangel Center for Public Service" at CCNY. While we all might be able to do without the latter, the former is probably going to hurt a group of needy people. In both Pelosi's and Rangel's case, reform means taking a hit with constituents, something that's anathema to Members of Congress.