Brady Campaign Filed Suit To Stop Concealed Guns In Park

The Department of the Interior issued a new rule allowing concealed guns in National Parks, as long as the states that house the parks permit concealed weapons. The final rule is here. The Brady Campaign has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block the new rule. The Brady brief is here.

Maxine Waters Played On Lou Dobbs' Incompetence

Here is Maxine Waters on Lou Dobbs Program on December 11, 2008.

Here is Maxine Waters on October 6, 2004 saying (a) there are no problems with mortgages and (b) championing mortgages under relaxed standards.

Mr. Dobbs needs to do his homework.

Senate Democrats Kill Auto Bailout Bill

On December 11, 2008, the Senate failed to muster the 60 votes needed to end debate so that it could vote on the Auto Bailout Bill. The vote was 52-35, eight short of the sixty needed. Reliance on media reports would lead one to believe that Republican senators single-handedly killed the bill.

Voting to end debate were 40 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents. Voting not to end debate were 31 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Four Democrats did not vote, Biden, Wyden, Kennedy and Kerry. If they had voted, it is likely they would have voted to end debate and that would have been 56 votes to end debate. Considering that four Democrats voted no, the failure to end debate came about because the Democratic Senate Caucus was unable to get all its members to vote and was unable to persuade all its members to vote to end debate.

The Graying Of Senator Obama's Hair

Recently, it was pointed out that Senator Obama's hair is showing some gray. There are two possible explanations: (1) The stress of running for president is causing the graying. (2) He has been graying for some time, but has been using dye to cover it up, and he has stopped doing so. Why? Perhaps he wants to attempt to neuter the belief among some that he is too young to be president. Having some gray hair adds age and maturity.

Democrats And Republicans On The Financial Crisis

Listen to Democrats and Republicans here. Members of the House were speaking at a Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee held on October 6, 2004.

The Evolution Of The Financial Crisis

Watch it here.

Brief Debate In The Senate On DC Gun Bill

From the Congressional Record, September 25, 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important issue, and that is gun rights, the second amendment gun rights for our country.

As we are dealing with the financial stabilization program which is being negotiated, the continuing resolution, which will come over from the House shortly, we do have time to talk about some of the other issues that are so important for our country.

I think the second amendment rights of people who live in the District of Columbia are very important. There was a Supreme Court case, a landmark ruling, that was made by the Supreme Court of the United States a couple months ago that said: The District of Columbia gun ban was unconstitutional.

Many of us in Congress helped with an amicus brief, a brief to the Court signed by a majority of the Members of the House and the Senate, that asked that the Court overturn this DC gun ban because it was the most restrictive outright gun ban in all of America, and it clearly violated the rights of the people of the District of Columbia.

The Court agreed. Now many of us who were hoping to pursue this right for the people of the District of Columbia, which is under the auspices of Congress, waited to see what the District City Council would do. We hoped they would do the right thing and adhere to the Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed that their ban on the ownership of handguns was unconstitutional.

The District then came out with an almost incomprehensible ordinance that does continue to make it very difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun.

The District allows registration of pistols for use in self-defense within the applicant's home. So it does not allow the ownership of a handgun in a person's business, to have self-defense in their business, but it does allow it in the home.

But then the ordinance goes on to say that it is a policy of the District of Columbia that firearms should be stored unloaded and either disassembled or locked, which is the complete opposite result of the original ruling.

I do not think anyone in America would consider an unlocked, unloaded gun to be potentially used for self-defense if someone is entering their home illegally.

The firearm registration requirements are onerous. As a condition for registration, the District requires applicants to pay separate, unlimited fees for filing their registration, applicants have their mandatory fingerprints processed, and have their handguns run through a ballistic imaging process.

What we are trying to do now is say you would have the ability to own a handgun for your personal use in your home for self-defense for you and your family. We also want to authorize DC residents to buy handguns from licensed dealers in Maryland or Virginia because, of course, there is only one gun dealer in the District of Columbia because there has been such a shortage of guns that a gun owner would sell because you could not have one.

Because there is a current Federal law against interstate handgun sales, only Congress can authorize this. So the only way a person will have the ability to buy from a licensed dealer--and a licensed dealer must pass a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; all of that would be enforced, but we do need to have the ability for someone to have a reasonable place to go if they are going to buy a gun to protect themselves and their family.

The bottom line is, as soon as we have representation on the floor by both parties, I intend to ask unanimous consent that we proceed to consideration of the bill. Now, the bill is H.R. 6842. It passed the House overwhelmingly last week. We want to take up that bill. In fact, I have a letter to Senator Reid signed by 47 Members of the Senate, and I am asking that be submitted for the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2008.
Hon. HARRY REID,
Majority Leader, U.S Senate,
Washington, DC.

DEAR LEADER REID: On June 26, 2008. the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right. In District of Columbia v. Heller. the court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right. The majority held ``that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.''

For more than thirty years. the District of Columbia has subjected residents to the most prohibitive gun control laws of any city in the nation, requiring rifles and shotguns to he registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or disassembled. Despite the Court's ruling in June, the District of Columbia city council has continued to exact onerous and unconstitutional firearm regulations on law-abiding residents.

This week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act. This bipartisan bill was overwhelmingly approved with a vote 266-152. We ask you to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison; Jon Tester; Saxby Chambliss; Judd Gregg; Richard Burr, John Ensign; Johnny Isakson; John E. Sununu; John McCain; Lisa Murkowski; Jim DeMint; ------; Kit Bond; John Cornyn; Mike Enzi; Ted Stevens; Orrin Hatch; Chuck Grassley; Max Baucus; Larry E. Craig; Mel Martinez; Thad Cochran; Roger Wicker; Sam Brownback; Lindsey Graham; Pat Roberts; John Thune; Richard Shelby; Mike Crapo; David Vitter; John Barrasso; Elizabeth Dole; George V. Voinovich; Pete V. Domenici; Jim Inhofe; Wayne Allard; Norm Coleman; E. Benjamin Nelson; Tim Johnson; Bob Corker; Lamar Alexander; Jon Kyl; Gordon H. Smith; Olympia Snowe; Susan M. Collins; Mary Landrieu, Mitch McConnell.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Forty-seven of our Members have asked the majority leader to allow this bill to be taken up so we can pass it and send it to the President and assure that the people of the District of Columbia have the same second amendment right that is allowed to every other person in our country. So I would ask whether the Chair is able to speak for the majority

[Page: S9442]

or if you prefer I wait for another person to come to the floor. I can do that or I can do it now.

I will withhold. I ask unanimous consent that as soon as the leader is finished, I be recognized again to make my motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Republican leader is recognized.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6842, a bill to restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

This is the bill that was passed by the House last week by an overwhelming margin, and I move my unanimous consent request.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an attempt to write the DC gun laws and to take away the authority of the elected government of the District of Columbia to write its own laws relative to firearms consistent with the new Supreme Court decision. If the Senator from Texas were making such a proposal for the city of Dallas or the city of Houston or the city of San Antonio, it would have some credibility because that is her State. But to make this request that we would overrule the power of the elected government of DC to implement the Supreme Court decision is inappropriate.

On behalf of Senators who have signed a public letter in opposition to the bill that passed the House, Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, Menendez, Mikulski, Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ben Cardin, and myself, I object.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just respond by saying that it is the prerogative of Congress to make laws that are directly appropriate for the District of Columbia. I have been on the DC Appropriations Subcommittee; I actually was chairman when Senator Durbin was ranking member, so he knows well that we pass laws for the District of Columbia because it is the District of Columbia, and we all appropriate money for the city to function. We have introduced this bill because the District of Columbia failed to protect the second amendment rights of the citizens of the city over which Congress has the ultimate responsibility.

It is entirely within the role of Congress to address an issue where a city is not protecting the constitutional rights of its constituents, over which the Congress has the authority. It would not be the same in the city of Chicago or the city of Dallas or other cities in our country. The District of Columbia is a unique city in that it is overseen by Congress. Congress has acted in the past over many issues where the District has fallen short, and I would say Senator Durbin and I have done quite a bit to strengthen the government of the District of Columbia and make it more financially responsible.

So I am disappointed that the Senator has objected. I have submitted for the Record a letter to Senator Reid from 47 of our Members who asked Senator Reid to let this bill come forward because, in fact, the District of Columbia acted--and I waited. I did not pursue this until the District of Columbia City Council acted because I hoped

[Page: S9444] GPO's PDF

they would do the right thing. Unfortunately, they put up so many barriers to a person's right to self-defense in their home by requiring that a handgun be locked and unloaded, and that is not protection--not in Chicago, not in Dallas, not in Houston, and not in the District of Columbia--nor can we overcome the Federal law that does not allow interstate sales of guns across State borders because in the District of Columbia, one should be able to go to Maryland or Virginia and buy from a licensed gun dealer to be able to pursue their right to protect their home and their family in the District of Columbia.

So the bill is necessary for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia over which Congress does have ultimate responsibility, and it is my hope that we will do what the House did overwhelmingly and pass this bill and send it to the President. I will continue to pursue opportunities to make that happen. Thank you, Mr. President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I first came to this city over 40 years ago as a student. It was a time before the District of Columbia had home rule. There was a certain paternalism felt by Congress toward the city of Washington, DC. Of course, the city of Washington, DC, does not have a voting representative in the Senate, and the delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who serves in the House, has limited authority to vote in committee but not on the floor. So DC does not have a voice in the House or Senate Chambers, despite the fact that some 600,000 taxpaying Americans live in our Capital City. I think that is wrong. I have consistently supported giving DC representation in Congress because I believe these Americans living in this city deserve the same rights to have a vote and be heard as those who live in Chicago or Dallas or Houston. But that has been the course of history.

Many people who come to Congress, always longing to be a mayor, get a chance to be a mayor over the District of Columbia. So this poor Capital City has 535 would-be mayors in the House and Senate who want to write ordinances for the city of Washington, DC, some of whom have been mayors at home, some of whom have lost in elections for mayor, but they are going to come here and be the mayor of Washington, DC, in addition to being a Member of the House and Senate.

There was another event that occurred shortly after I arrived in Washington--in fact, within a few weeks after I arrived--and that event occurred on November 22, 1963, in the city of Dallas, TX, when a great man and wonderful President, John Kennedy, was assassinated because another man took a long-range

rifle and shot at his motorcade as he passed through that city, mortally wounding the President of the United States and claiming his life. It was a tragedy which those of us who lived through will never forget as long as we live, and it is a reminder that even if you recognize and respect rights under the second amendment--and I do--there have to be reasonable limits in terms of firearms and weapons. Otherwise, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of tomorrow can literally menace those who visit this city.

I just left a meeting with the President of Afghanistan, a wonderful man who risks his life in Kabul every day to give his people in Afghanistan a chance for freedom. He is under heavy security and guard not only in Afghanistan but in the United States. Are we going to put ourselves in a position to say--as the bill that the Senator from Texas wanted to bring to the floor says--that we are going to repeal the District of Columbia's laws on semiautomatic and assault weapons?

Are we going to now say that Congress will mandate that weapons which could be dangerous for those who live here and those who visit here in this Capital City, that we will decide in Congress which weapons will be allowed and which will not be allowed? That is what this bill does. That is exactly what it does. It goes much further than the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller reached just a few weeks ago.

Let me be specific. The bill would severely undermine DC gun laws far beyond the scope of that Supreme Court decision. That decision invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban and found that the second amendment confers an individual right. I don't quarrel with that, but it did not require the invalidation of all other types of laws, as this bill does. In fact, Justice Scalia--no liberal--Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion in Heller, specifically noted that a wide range of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful.'' Everything from laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' to ``conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.''

Justice Scalia, in acknowledging that the second amendment creates an individual right to firearms, still made it clear that individual jurisdictions--States, local units of government--would still have the authority to forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places and to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The bill that Senator Hutchison wants us to impose on the District of Columbia, however, repeals the prohibition of the District of Columbia of carrying guns in public, directly counter to the language of Justice Scalia; repeals DC's gun registration requirements, though it is clear in the language of the Supreme Court decision that jurisdictions such as Washington have the right to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; repeals the requirement of the District of Columbia that guns are not sold to those who abuse them in crimes or those who are mentally unstable. The provisions of the bill which Senator Hutchison would impose on the District of Columbia repeals their right to stop people with mental illness from buying firearms or those with a history of commission of felonies. Does that make sense? Does it make sense in Washington? Does it make sense in Chicago? Does it make sense in Dallas or Houston? It does not make sense.

To come here and say that we are going to write the DC gun law, we are going to decide the safety of 600,000 people and every visitor to this city, is plain wrong. Give the city of Washington the same opportunity that the city of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Chicago asks: to write laws consistent with this Supreme Court decision. They have to. Ultimately, any effort to do otherwise is going to be overturned by that Court. But to impose, as the Childers bill would--Representative Childers of Mississippi introduced this bill--as this bill would, is to go too far.

I will object to this because I think this city of Washington, as well as the cities of Chicago and Springfield, IL, which I represent, and the cities of Texas have the right to write their laws to protect their citizens. When we come here and impose on them requirements and restrictions that are not being imposed on cities in our own State, it goes too far.

I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it was not quite accurate to suggest that repealing the DC's gun ban and all of the onerous restrictions put on it weren't replaced in the law to require that there be licensed gun dealers from which you could purchase a gun.

Of course, they would be licensed with all the Federal requirements, all the State requirements in Maryland and the State of Virginia. Of course, that would be a part of this law.

I have to say, I am not understanding why the distinguished Senator from Illinois continues to say the Congress does not have a right to impose our will on the District of Columbia. I have the Constitution of the United States. Article I gives the exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia to the Congress ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. .....''

The District of Columbia was created to be the seat of government over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. It would not apply to any other State where the Constitution says the States rights prevail. But the District of Columbia is a special city, which I know the Senator from Illinois knows. It is not 535 people trying to usurp the rights of the mayor. It is 535 people who are trying to exercise our responsibility to have laws in the District of Columbia that would adhere to

[Page:
S9445] GPO's PDF

the constitutional rights of the citizens here. It is our responsibility, and that is what we are trying to do.

Of course, I know the Senator from Illinois knows it has been clearly upheld that preventing certain areas for the carriage of guns, qualifications on sales, bans on automatics have been declared reasonable. I know the Senator from Illinois knows that. Those would be provided for, of course, because it is Federal law.

What we are trying to do is give the basic rights, which is our responsibility as Congress, to the citizens of this District to keep and bear arms, to have the individual right to have a handgun in their home to protect their families, not a handgun that is locked and unloaded, which is what the District of Columbia Council has put out as its response to the Supreme Court case that declared their ban unconstitutional; not to provide so many restrictions and costs on registering a gun that it becomes very difficult and creates a restriction on those second amendment rights; and last but not least, giving them the right in this one instance to buy a gun across State lines because this District is bordered by Virginia and Maryland, where there are gun dealers who are licensed, who do have the correct restrictions and background checks in place to be able to do that because there are not gun dealers in the District of Columbia who would give the proper access to people who would want to protect themselves and their homes.

When I look at the statistics in the District of Columbia, I look at the person who is robbed and murdered in their home. I look at the policeman who is shot in the face doing his duty in this District. I think people should have the right in this District to protect their businesses with a handgun, which is barred by the District of Columbia, and to have a firearm in their homes unlocked and able to protect their families from an intruder.

We did not get to bring up this legislation today. When the House of Representatives passes something 266 to 152, that makes a clear statement that this Congress is trying to do the right thing to help the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights.

I hope at some point the Senate will take up this bill that has been passed by the House overwhelmingly and send it to the President, who I know will sign it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The assistant majority leader is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the police chief of the District of Columbia, Cathy Lanier, testified before the House of Representatives and said this bill, which Senator Hutchison is trying to impose on the District of Columbia, would make it far more difficult for the policemen in the District of Columbia and Federal agencies ``to ensure safety and security in the Nation's capital,'' and she cited particular concerns about providing security for the thousands of dignitaries, motorcades, and special events that occur in our Nation's capital.

I wish to listen to those who are in uniform risking their lives in Washington, DC, to keep it safe for the people who live and visit here. They should be given the opportunity to make sure the laws that are written are written in a way to be consistent with the Supreme Court decision, consistent with the individual right to bear arms but also consistent with the standards that Justice Scalia mentioned.

The Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would say must be the law of the District of Columbia would repeal the District of Columbia's prohibition of carrying guns in public. That runs directly counter to the language of Justice Scalia, who said that States and cities could impose laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.'' Does that mean we would be prohibited from searching people coming into the Capitol complex and taking their guns away under the Hutchison provision? I am not sure I know the answer to that question, but I think it is worth thinking about carefully before we consider imposing this gun ordinance from the House.

I am also concerned about the fact that this bill would repeal the right of Washington, DC, to regulate gun sales. I don't want guns to end up in the hands of the mentally ill and those with a history of felonies, violent felonies. Does that make you feel safer?

My State of Illinois, similar to the State of Virginia, recently went through this tragic episode, where someone brought a gun into college last year at Northern Illinois University, killing innocent people. It also happened across the river at Virginia Tech.

Do I think in Illinois and in Virginia we want to make sure on college campuses and other sensitive places that people do not carry firearms? Of course, I do. If I am going to send a child of mine or grandchild to a university, the first thing I want is for them to come home alive. If it means putting reasonable standards so people cannot carry guns into those surroundings, we should do it. Why would we create a different circumstance for the District of Columbia? I went to school at Georgetown University. If Georgetown wants to make certain that students do not carry guns on to certain elements of the campus, I stand behind them and I will fight for them. It is consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

I wish to tell you something, the Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would impose on Washington repeals Washington's right to prohibit the carrying of guns in public. That goes too far. To take this provision that has been written by the gun lobby and impose it on the District of Columbia and on all the people who live here is wrong.

The Senator is right; in the past, Congress has done just about anything you can think imaginable when it comes to imposing laws on the District of Columbia. Many Members of Congress who never served as mayors get their chance to pick on this city right here, to write Federal legislation that they would never think of introducing back home for their own hometowns. Let's do it for Washington; let's go ahead and try a little experiment. That is not fair, it is not just, and it is not American.

These people in this town deserve a voice in their own future, to elect people who speak for them and represent them, as we do all across America, to have a chance, as Delegate Norton has asked for, only 6 months to implement this new Supreme Court decision is not unreasonable. I know there are those who want it done today, and I am anxious to see it done, too, but I am not going to try to impose a law on the District of Columbia that is unfair, that creates insecurity where we have been warned by the police chief that it makes it less safe for visitors to the Nation's capital. That is irresponsible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter, dated September 22, 2008, to our majority leader from some of my colleagues expressing concern about this legislation.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2008.
Hon. HARRY REID,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Washington, DC.

DEAR LEADER REID: We are writing to express our concern about H.R. 6842, the ``National Capital Security and Safety Act,'' which would override the laws of the District of Columbia on the ownership of firearms in the District. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, September 17, and we understand it will be placed on the Senate calendar without being referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Judiciary Committee.

This legislation would have a considerable impact on safety and security in the nation's capital. In addition, we understand that it makes at least one significant change to federal criminal law. As a result, we are concerned about proceeding to this bill without hearing from local and federal law enforcement officials and other interested parties. We also believe there should be an opportunity to offer and debate amendments to this bill.

In short, this legislation is too important to consider according to a truncated process. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Robert Menendez, Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ben Cardin.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make sure the record shows that, No. 1, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to assure that

[Page: S9446] GPO's PDF

the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights. That is our highest calling. It is our highest responsibility. It is not usurping anyone's right in the District of Columbia City Council. It is standing for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia, which is our responsibility to do.

Secondly, I want the record to be very clear that every gun dealer in the District of Columbia--there is one--in the State of Virginia, and in the State of Maryland all have the same requirements that are Federal law that would have to be adhered to that would require a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There would be no exceptions to that. Having the background check would be essential for anyone to purchase a gun under our law or any law of the United States.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The 50 Richest Members of the 110th Congress (2007-2008)

From Roll Call

September 22, 2008, 12:00 a.m.
By Paul Singer, Jennifer Yachnin and Casey Hynes
Roll Call Staff

Everything that you are about to read might be wrong.

Roll Call’s annual attempt to rank the riches of Members of Congress is hampered by one fundamental flaw: It is based on the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms, which are extraordinarily unreliable sources of information.

The disclosure rules allow Members to report assets in broad categories, so there is no way to tell the difference between a $20 million investment and a $5 million investment. The top category on the Members’ forms is “over $50 million,” so it is impossible to accurately account for anything worth more than that — like a professional sports team, for example. There is also a gaping loophole for assets owned by the Members’ spouse or dependent children; anything worth more than $1 million in value can be reported as “over $1 million.” There is no way to tell whether that is $1.2 million or $1.2 billion.

The rules also don’t require reporting things of value that are not used to produce income — most notably any primary residence or other home that is not used for rentals. That loophole removes from most Members’ portfolios hundreds of thousands of dollars and in come cases millions of dollars worth of assets. Airplanes, fancy cars, antiques or other valuable items are not reported.

In filing a detailed disclosure form on behalf of Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), his accountants added this editorial note, which sums up the problem: The form is meant to comply with Senate disclosure rules but “is not intended to be a complete presentation of Senator Corker’s financial position.”

Beyond all of these flaws, there remains the fact that many, many financial disclosure forms filed by Members of Congress are simply inaccurate. A check mark placed in the wrong box can inflate or deflate a Member’s apparent net worth by millions of dollars, and misunderstandings of the rules have led Members to understate some assets, overstate others and claim additional assets they no longer own.

Where the errors are obvious or have created noticeable discrepancies from prior-year filings, Roll Call has attempted to contact the offices to get a proper understanding of the actual value of the asset or assets in question.

What remains below is a ranking of the 50 wealthiest Members of Congress based on the minimum net worth reported on their financial disclosure forms. To achieve these numbers, Roll Call totaled the assets listed on financial disclosure forms filed in 2008 (covering calendar year 2007) using the lowest number in the ranges in which Members are required to report. An asset from $500,000 to $1 million is counted as being worth $500,000, unless the Member has provided a brokerage statement or other documentation that offers more specific detail.

Liabilities, which are also reported in ranges, are calculated based on the minimum value, and are subtracted from total minimum assets to establish total net worth.

Assets that are not included on the forms but have values that have been established by Roll Call or other publications are not included for the purposes of assembling this ranking, because the Members are not required to report these numbers. This ranking is based only on what is reported on the annual disclosure forms.

1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
$230.98 million

The Massachusetts Senator claims the mantel of richest Member in the 110th Congress. Kerry’s actual holdings, however — including those of wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, widow to ketchup heir Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.) — are likely much greater.

In an April 2008 article, Forbes.com estimated Heinz Kerry’s net worth at $1 billion.

Kerry’s disclosure forms list the value of more than 180 assets — including Heinz family trusts and investment funds — only as “over $1 million,” rather than the more specific ranges including $1 million to $5 million. Senators are allowed to list assets in the “over $1 million” category only if the items are held independently by a spouse or dependent child.

2. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
$225.96 million

The wealthy Californian, who remains heavily invested in Harman International Industries, has seen her wealth increase nearly $10 million since filing her 2006 report.

Harman’s report lists three accounts, including one held solely by her husband, totaling a combined minimum of $125 million in stock and options in the company. Harman’s spouse founded the company, which manufactures electronics under the brand names AKG Acoustics, Harman Kardon, Infinity and JBL, among others.

In addition, Harman, who has no outstanding debts, lists a trust fund worth $1.8 million and an additional $2 million in multiple hedge fund accounts.
3. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
$160.62 million

The Golden State lawmaker added $2 million to his bottom line in 2007, increasing his fortune by a little more than 1 percent.

Issa, founder of the Vista, Calif.-based Directed Electronics, which manufactures car alarms, claims an investment worth at least $50 million in DEI and $25 million to $50 million in Greene Properties Inc. Both corporations own and operate office and industrial properties in California.

His portfolio also comprises numerous investment funds, including a dozen valued at a minimum of $5 million each.

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
$80.40 million

A descendant of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, the West Virginian’s vast assets remained stable in 2007, as his net worth increased by a little more than 1 percent.

Rockefeller’s fortunes are stored primarily in three blind trusts with JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wachovia Corp. and United National Bank, valued at more than $50 million, $25 million to $50 million, and $5 million to $25 million, respectively.

Another family trust is listed at simply “over $1 million.”

The Senator lists at least $5.5 million in debt on two loans, down from $6.5 million in 2006, when he listed an additional $1 million loan from United National Bank in Charleston, W.Va.

5. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.)
$78.96 million

The Tar Heel State lawmaker’s wealth more than doubled since 2006, when he identified about $36 million in assets.

According to Hayes’ office, the increase, including more than $36 million in new trust funds, is the result of an inheritance. Hayes’ mother passed away in 2007.

Among the holdings in Hayes’ numerous trust funds are a mix of stocks and bonds, as well as properties including land in Lake County, Minn., and Sheldon, S.C., valued at least $5 million and $1 million, respectively.

The funds include at least $1 million in stock in corporations such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Merck, Pfizer, General Electric and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris USA.

The North Carolinian also lists a commercial loan of at least $1 million to finance his private airplane.

6. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)
$65.49 million

Buchanan, the owner of several car dealerships, watched his wealth dip slightly in the past year, dropping $1.74 million, or more than 2 percent below his 2006 total.

While the Florida lawmaker’s empire — comprising several automobile dealerships, an aircraft charter business, real estate holdings and investment accounts — amounts to $102.34 million, it carries with it nearly $37 million in debt.

Included in that figure are new purchases in 2007: a King Air 350 aircraft and a Learjet, both listed as debts valued at $5 million to $25 million from SunTrust Leasing of Baltimore.

He also lists an Embraer Legacy from the same creditor for $5 million to $25 million.

7. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
$55.33 million

Lautenberg, who made millions from the payroll processing company he created five decades ago, reported that his total minimum assets jumped about 24 percent, from $45 million in 2006, but that number is still not very revealing. Lautenberg’s two biggest assets are two blind trusts that he set up for himself, each worth $5 million to $25 million. Together they count for $10 million of his assets for this list, though they could be worth five times that amount.

The major increase over last year appears to be in his wife’s assets. She has several family trusts in her name, mostly holding real estate, and between 2006 and 2007 she received additional assets from her mother, Lautenberg’s office said.

So in 2006, Lautenberg reported that through an entity called LCBS Corp. his wife held “over $1 million” of Mira Loma Associates, a company holding residential real estate in Riverside, Calif. In 2007, Mira Loma was listed twice at “over $1 million” — once as part of LCBS and once as a separate asset in Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg’s name. Several of her family trusts also purchased real estate and other assets worth more than $5 million in 2007.

8. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
$52.34 million

Together with her husband, financier Richard Blum, Feinstein claims a diversified portfolio that grew by $1.8 million, or an increase of just under 4 percent, since 2006.

The Californian lists assets with her husband that include ownership of all or part of numerous limited partnerships.

Among those, the Blum Family Partners, owned entirely by Blum, claims “over $1 million” in stock in RAE Systems, a manufacturer of chemical and radiation detection equipment. The fund also includes “over $1 million” in a real estate investment trust.

In addition, Feinstein lists a $5 million to $25 million investment in Carlton Hotel Properties in San Francisco and owns condos in both Tahoe City, Calif., and on Kauai in Hawaii, both valued at $1 million to $5 million.

Feinstein also lists at least $2 million in debt to Bank of America for two loans made to Blum Capital Partners.

9. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)
$47.62 million

Much of Kennedy’s wealth stems from family trusts, and the Massachusetts Senator reported almost no change in 2007, with an increase of less than 1 percent.

Kennedy lists one family trust valued from $25 million to $50 million, as well as four trusts worth at least $5 million each and a blind trust totaling at least $1 million.

The Bay State lawmaker also owns a rental property in Hyannisport, Mass., valued at at least $1 million and lists a plot of undeveloped land in Lafayette, La., owned by his wife, worth from $500,000 to $1 million.

Kennedy lists $1 million in mortgage debt from Northern Trust Co. for his Hyannisport property.

10. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)
$28.65 million

If you take financial disclosure forms seriously (never a good idea), you might be led to believe that Smith’s net worth tripled last year. His 2006 financial disclosure form disclosed net assets of about $8.5 million.

But Smith’s worth is largely derived from Smith Food Sales, a purveyor of frozen vegetables. In 2006 he listed that asset as being worth $5 million to $25 million. In 2007, the value has jumped to the next category, $25 million to $50 million, so even if the value of the asset rose from just under to just more than $25 million, the effect on the disclosure form is to add $20 million to Smith’s minimum net worth. Since Smith doesn’t have to report the assets of the corporation, his actual net worth may be far above what is reported on the Congressional form.

11. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
$23.93 million

The Lone Star State lawmaker saw his wealth increase by more than $6 million in 2007, largely thanks to his wife’s investment in a San Antonio real estate partnership.

According to his disclosures, Maychild Ltd. increased in value to at least $5 million, adding $4 million to his minimum net worth under Roll Call’s evaluation method. In 2006, McCaul listed the real estate partnership, which owns a mix of commercial and residential properties, in the $1 million to $5 million range.

Together with his wife and family, McCaul also invests at least $12.1 million in Clear Channel Communications, the company founded by his father-in-law, Lowry Mays. The McCauls also list nearly $1 million invested in Live Nation, a Clear Channel spinoff.

The Texan lists no debts.

12. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)
$22.41 million

The New Jersey lawmaker’s riches shrank almost imperceptibly in 2007, decreasing slightly more than 1 percent.

Frelinghuysen’s assets comprise more than $15 million from several family trusts invested primarily in stocks.

He lists an investment of at least $1 million in Procter & Gamble Co., and one family trust lists an additional $5 million to $25 million invested in the same company.

Frelinghuysen’s holdings in Johnson & Johnson decreased in minimal value by half in 2007, dropping to $500,000 from $1 million last year.

The lawmaker’s investments also include 18 acres in Frelinghuysen Township, N.J., valued at a minimum of $250,000, and a stake in 236 acres in Stockbridge, Mass., worth at least $100,000.

13. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
$19.64 million

McCain’s true value is impossible to estimate because most of the major assets are listed in the name of his wife or children, thereby requiring far less detailed disclosure. Other news outlets have suggested that Cindy McCain’s net worth may exceed $100 million, but there is no documentation to prove that figure.

McCain’s disclosure form lists 12 items with values of “over $1 million” that are owned by his wife and children. In 2007, the family liquidated a trust set up by Cindy McCain’s late mother that had a reported value in 2006 of more than $2.5 million. The proceeds were then distributed to three other trusts, which show a minimum value of $1.4 million. Cindy McCain also liquidated a blind trust in 2007, selling millions of dollars worth of stock, and the reported value of the stock she owns through Hensley & Co. — her family’s beer distributorship — dropped more than $4 million in value last year.

The only assets McCain claims as his own are a checking account with a balance of $15,000 to $50,000, a money market fund worth less than $15,000 and several book deals.

14. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
$19.42 million

McCaskill watched her net worth grow in 2007, increasing more than 24 percent over her estimated $15.66 million total in 2006.

Among McCaskill’s major assets: approximately 270 limited partnerships in affordable housing real estate and a handful of “enterprise trust investment funds” held by her husband that showed a combined increase of approximately $2.7 million in value from last year.

Her spouse purchased a Kansas City, Mo., housing bond listed in the “over $1 million” category.

The Senator’s husband also identified a loan of at least $1 million, the only liability listed by the couple, from Enterprise Bank.

15. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
$19.19 million

In 2006, Corker sold off several commercial properties, thereby eliminating more than $20 million in mortgages that had counted as liabilities against his assets. With those liabilities out of the way, Corker’s minimum net worth jumps from about $1.5 million on his 2006 report to more than $19 million on his 2007 report.

One of the liabilities remaining is attributed to Corker’s “dependent child”: a loan from the Senator valued at more than $1 million, payable at 5.05 percent interest.

In 2007, according to an explanatory note attached to his disclosure form, Corker also divested himself of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of publicly traded stock in order to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest. He consolidated his investments in several funds that are widely diversified and therefore do not have to report their underlying holdings. When one of the funds could not meet the Ethics Committee’s requirements for an “exempt” fund, Corker withdrew from the investment.

16. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)
$19.01 million

The New York lawmaker saw her estimated net worth increase more than 44 percent over the past year, up from $13.18 million.

The jump results from growth in her portion of a real estate development company, which moved up from the $1 million minimum category to the $5 million minimum category, effectively adding $4 million to Maloney’s bottom line.

Maloney listed a value of at least $5 million for Bosher Family, a partner of the real estate development company HPB Enterprises.

She also lists a separate $1 million entry for HPB Enterprises in Hertford, N.C.

The Democrat also owns a “rental property and residence” in New York valued at $5 million to $25 million, a rental property in New Canaan, Conn., ($1 million to $5 million) and a Washington, D.C., house ($1 million to $5 million).

Maloney also has about $2 million in mortgage debts and real estate loans on those properties and an Arlington, Va., condo.

17. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
$18.71 million

The Californian’s net worth rose nearly 16 percent in 2007, adding $2.5 million to her personal wealth.

Among her assets, Pelosi lists a Norden, Calif., town house valued at $1 million to $5 million and a real estate investment in Napa, Calif., worth at least $500,000.

In addition, her husband owns a commercial property in San Francisco valued at $5 million to $25 million. In 2006, the property was listed as worth $1 million to $5 million, so that property alone added $4 million to Pelosi’s net worth last year.

The couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, Calif., valued at $5 million to $25 million.

The Speaker’s husband also increased tenfold his holdings in Apple Computer Inc. stock to at least $5 million, up from a minimum of $500,000 in 2006.

Pelosi and her husband also owe mortgage debt on several of their properties, including the vineyard, totaling at least $8.75 million.

Other debts listed by Pelosi include lines of credit totaling at least $3.5 million.

18. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
$17.77 million

The largest asset on Lowey’s disclosure form is an account in her husband’s name with the investment firm Ingalls & Snyder listed with a value of $5 million to $25 million. In 2006, Lowey listed the same asset with a value of $1 million to $5 million.

Her husband has several other investment accounts worth a minimum of $1 million each, as well as at least $1 million in a profit- sharing plan from his law firm, Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger (which has since been renamed). The couple also list joint investment accounts at Glickenhaus & Co. and Fidelity worth from $1 million to $5 million each.

19. Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)
$16.45 million

The North Carolinian and her husband, former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), saw a modest rise in their wealth, increasing a little more than 2 percent since 2006.

The Doles’ assets include the only liability listed by the couple multiple checking and money market accounts worth at least $1.12 million, including one account held by Bob Dole valued at “over $1 million.”

The former Senator also claims a stake in five investment funds, worth a combined minimum of nearly $5 million. He also lists multiple promissory notes from the Robert J. Dole Irrevocable Trust, including two worth “over $1 million.”

Elizabeth Dole also lists about 119 acres of land in Johnson City, Kan., valued at $1 million to $5 million.

20. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
$15.05 million

Snowe’s net worth is largely tied to her husband’s position as chairman of the board of Education Management Corp., a Pittsburgh-based education company. Snowe lists her husband’s stock in Education Management as an asset worth $5 million to $25 million. In last year’s disclosure form, that asset was valued at $1 million to $5 million.

He also holds stock options worth $1 million to $5 million. The couple jointly holds mutual funds shares worth more than $2 million.

21. Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.)
$14.63 million

The Wisconsin lawmaker claimed a nearly 7 percent increase in his holdings over the past year, increasing his wealth by more than $900,000.

Petri’s major investments include stock in both U.S. Bank and Walgreens Co., each valued at $5 million to $25 million.

He also claims at least $1 million in stock for both Berkshire Hathaway and British insurance exchange Lloyds of London. The latter has doubled in minimum value since 2006, when Petri listed the asset as worth at least $500,000.

Petri’s only debt is a loan issued by Merrill Lynch, valued at $1 million to $5 million.

22. Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.)
$14.49 million

Having disposed of several debts, Miller’s net worth has rocketed more than 39 percent, or about $4 million, in his most recent report.

The Californian no longer lists debts of at least $1 million each for the Fontana Library Co. and the Upland, Calif.-based Church Haven Co., which he listed last year.

Miller’s assets include an account with Pomona Bank and Trust 1st Federal worth $5 million to $25 million and 382 acres in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., valued at at least $5 million.

He also added a new investment worth $1 million to $5 million in PFF Bancorp, the parent company of Rancho Cucamonga-based PFF Bank and Trust.

23. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
$12.43 million

The Tennessee Senator’s largest asset is his stock in Processed Foods Corp., a Knoxville-based company where Alexander served on the board prior to his election to the Senate in 2002. He holds $5 million to $25 million worth of the company’s stock, and his wife holds “over $1 million” as well.

The family’s other major assets are land and real estate, in particular a patch in Nantucket, Mass., that is worth $1 million to $5 million for Alexander and “over $1 million” for his wife.

He incurred several new debts in 2007, taking out four loans totaling at least $560,000.

24. Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.)
$11.39 million

Kids. You pour your heart into them, and they grow up, leave and take all your money. Or something like that.

Campbell’s financial disclosure form for 2007 notes that one of his children reached the age of majority, so Campbell is no longer required to report the assets that were previously counted as belonging to the “dependent child.” That and the fact that one of the rental properties Campbell owns was misreported the year before (it was listed as being worth at least $1 million, but should have been listed at $500,000 to $1 million) leaves the California Congressman showing a drop of more than $2 million in the assets that he declared last year.

However, he still owns more than $6 million worth of California real estate, among his other holdings.

25. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
$11.34 million

Sensenbrenner, who submits one of the lengthiest financial disclosures each year by providing his regular report along with a detailed accounting of his net worth, saw his tally drop by about 3 percent from the previous year.

Much of the Wisconsin lawmaker’s losses come from a downtick in his $6.7 million of investments in stocks and bonds, comprising $1.3 million in Merck & Co. Inc. and significant investments in Exxon Mobil Corp., General Electric Co., Pfizer Inc. and Abbot Laboratories Inc.

He also owns an Alexandria, Va., home valued at $1.5 million and a $1 million interest in a Waukesha County, Wis., home.

Sensenbrenner has also listed $7,800 in travelers checks for the past two years.

26. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.)
$11.20 million

Rehberg increased his net worth by 5 percent in 2007 as the value of his wife’s Billings, Mont., farm increased by $500,000.

The Montanan’s office said Rehberg’s spouse reincorporated the property in preparation to sell it, revising the property value to at least $1 million. The Rehbergs did not ultimately sell the parcel.

Rehberg’s assets also include at least $10 million in ranching and livestock operations and $1 million in Rehberg Ranch Marketing Inc.

He also lists $1.3 million in loan debt for development, construction and agriculture.

27. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
$10.50 million

According to Harkin’s financial disclosure forms, his minimum net worth has essentially doubled since 2006 because of his wife’s purchase of about $5 million worth of stock in 2007.

Harkin’s office wouldn’t comment on where the money for the purchases came from, but the disclosure form indicates that his wife, Ruth, bought and sold “over $1 million” worth of stock in United Technologies Corp., where she used to be a vice president. Harkin’s forms have previously stated that his wife’s compensation from UTC included a “contractual right to receive stock in the future,” so it is possible that she took stock that was owed to her and converted it to other securities.

The assets that are listed as belonging to the Senator alone or through joint ownership have a minimum value of less than $100,000. The Harkins list no liabilities.

28. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)
$10.49 million

In 2007, Marchant exchanged several ranch properties for a partnership interest in Bonita Lands and Cattle, a group that holds 3,500 acres, plus cows and equipment. Bonita became the largest asset on his disclosure form for 2007, valued at $5 million to $25 million.

Marchant’s other major assets are rolled into a family partnership called Marken Interests Ltd. The partnership holds 73 acres in Ft. Worth, Texas, which Marchant values at $1 million to $5 million, plus mineral rights and a wide array of stocks.

Marchant also lists more than $3 million in liabilities, but several of those items are mortgages that appear to have been paid off or assumed by Bonita, which would suggest that his net worth has already risen over the total reported on his latest financial disclosure form.

29. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)
$10.39 million

In 2006, in preparation for her White House bid, Clinton closed a blind trust worth $5 million to $25 million, reported its stock holdings and then sold them off because of different disclosure requirements for presidential candidates.

In 2007, her primary assets were two Citibank deposit accounts, each worth $5 million to $25 million, one of which is new. While the disclosure form she prepared for the presidential race indicated a minimum net worth of about $17 million and her current disclosure only tallies about $10 million, the wide ranges reported for the family’s cash accounts could easily accommodate millions more in assets than she gets credit for in this tally.

Beyond the two giant bank accounts, the family’s biggest asset appears to be Bill Clinton, who earned more than $10 million giving speeches in 2007.

30. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
$8.64 million

The Alabaman’s fortunes diminished nearly 6.5 percent in 2007, a drop of about $600,000.

Shelby owns 48 shares in Tuscaloosa Title, a title abstract and insurance company, with a value of $1 million to $5 million, and his wife owns two shares worth $50,000 to $100,000.

The couple transferred a 49 percent stake in a Tuscaloosa, Ala., apartment building, listed at $500,000 to $1 million, to the Shelby Family Trust in late 2007.

Shelby’s assets also include a D.C. town house and a Tuscaloosa home, both valued in the “over $1 million” category, as well as a Tuscaloosa office building listed at $500,000 to $1 million.

The Senator lists $1 million in mortgage debt on the apartment building, as well as a personal note issued by Regions Bank for $250,000 to $500,000.

31. Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.)
$8.40 million

After the sale of his oil services company in 2003, several other companies Pearce founded have continued to grow. Last year, LFT, which takes its name from Lea Fishing Tools, the company Pearce sold, rose from $500,000 to $1 million to $1 million to $5 million, and Pearce also bought investment land in New Mexico.

Roll Call reported in April that Pearce apparently sold his company for about $12 million, but because the assets are held in a corporate account, he does not have to list the total amount among his assets or income.

32. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
$8.38 million

Since Members of Congress are required to report only properties that are producing income, it is not uncommon to see assets hop on or off Members’ disclosure forms from year to year when they start or stop renting them. Doggett appears to be a case in point: An Austin, Texas, property that was not reported in 2006 appears on his 2007 form with a value of $100,000 to $250,000, producing $5,000 to $15,000 in income. There is no reported transaction, which suggests that Doggett already owned it but began renting the “garage apt” last year.

His other holdings, which showed a solid increase over the prior year, include investments of at least $500,000 in several Vanguard investment funds, as well as Whole Foods Market Inc.

33. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
$8.20 million

The Georgia Senator paid off a small home mortgage while adding a new Massachusetts Avenue condo to his real estate portfolio.

Isakson reports a stable fortune, increasing his net worth less than 2 percent over his 2006 values.

His only debt is a $15,000 to $50,000 equity loan from Wachovia Bank.

Isakson also reported the purchase of a condo for $250,000 to $500,000.

The lawmaker’s assets include a mix of real estate and stocks, including Synovus, a financial services company. Isakson lists an investment of $1 million to $5 million in the company.

Among his real estate holdings are 12 acres in Rabun City, Ga., valued at $1 million to $5 million.

34. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah)
$7.93 million

Bennett’s fortune remained the same from 2006, with at least $5 million of his assets tied to Watermark Corp., a company that owns lodging properties in Salt Lake City.

While Bennett, who once owned all of Watermark Corp, now claims only a one-third stake, he acknowledges in his disclosure form that he maintains full rights to the company’s assets because he remains a guarantor on mortgages for company properties.

Those mortgage debts, for two Anniversary Inns located in Salt Lake City, are valued at minimums of $1 million and $5 million, respectively. Bennett lists the net value of those properties at $1 million to $5 million each.

35. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.)
$7.81 million

It was a good financial year for the one-time NFL quarterback, who added a more than 20 percent increase, about $1.3 million, to his net worth.

Shuler’s investment in River Crest Development, a Del Rio, Tenn.-based real estate development firm, jumped to a minimum value of $1 million, doubling from its $500,000 minimum rating last year.

The North Carolinian also added to his portfolio the River at Shining Rock, a Haywood County, N.C.-based real estate development company, valued at $1 million to $5 million.

His real estate holdings also include the Cove at Blackberry Ridge, valued at a minimum of $5 million, and a stake in a Knoxville, Tenn., shopping center valued at a minimum of $1 million.

Shuler carries $1 million in mortgage debt on rental property, as well as an additional $500,000 in business loans and a $50,000 consumer line of credit from United Community Bank in Lenoir City, Tenn.

36. Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)
$7.50 million

Spratt’s minimum net worth soared in 2007 as the value of an 800-acre swath of pasture land in Fort Mill, S.C., moved into the $5 million to $25 million range.

The increase over its previous minimum $1 million listing swells the Democrat’s fortunes by $4 million, the largest factor in his 141 percent increase.

Spratt’s other assets include investments in Bank of America Corp. valued at $500,000 to $1 million and York Bancshares at $1 million to $5 million.

His real estate holdings include a D.C. rental unit and properties in South Carolina, with a combined value of at least $850,000.

Spratt carries $480,000 in debt, a combination of mortgage debt, credit cards and promissory notes.

37. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.)
$7.37 million

Foster, who won the special election to replace former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), has almost all of his assets tied up in the theater lighting company he founded with his brother in 1975, Electronic Theatre Controls. Foster reports holding $5 million to $25 million in a promissory note “for payments over time arising from sale of interest” in the company, but also a $1 million to $5 million ownership interest in the company “that owns the factory building used by ETC Inc.”

He also has more than $1 million in savings, checking and money market accounts.

Foster reports no liabilities.

38. Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.)
$7.31 million

The Wisconsin lawmaker, who operated Kagen Allergy Clinics before his election to the House, maintains a portfolio composed largely of bonds, as well as a money market account valued at $1 million to $5 million.

He lists no debts.

39. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
$7.21 million

Upton’s fortunes increased by approximately $460,000 in 2007, adding nearly 7 percent to his net worth.

Together with his wife, the Michigan lawmaker owns $1 million to $5 million in Whirlpool, the Benton Harbor, Mich.-based appliance company co-founded by his grandfather.

The couple also lists $5 million to $25 million in family trusts and an additional $1 million in an investment account.

Upton lists no debts.

40. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.)
$7.03 million

Dreier’s wealth remains relatively unchanged at just over $7 million, decreasing less than 1 percent from his estimated 2006 net worth.

The California Republican’s primary asset, valued at $5 million to $25 million, is an interest in Tiffany Manor Apartments, a complex in Kansas City, Mo.

He also has $500,000 to $1 million invested in the Oklahoma Publishing Co., which produces both the Oklahoman newspaper and its Web site, NewsOK.com.

Dreier, who lists no debts, also has investments worth at least $250,000 in both Viacom and Gaylord Entertainment, which owns resorts in Nashville, Orlando, Dallas and D.C., as well as the Grand Ole Opry.

41. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
$7.02 million

Nelson holds an unusual investment portfolio that is made up almost entirely of certificates of deposit, municipal bonds and treasury notes. As such, his net reportable worth did not grow much over the past year, but his report also doesn’t indicate significant investment losses.

Nelson does report “residential acreages held for resale” in Nebraska, with a value of $500,000 to $1 million; a year ago, that property was valued at $1 million to $5 million. He also holds stock worth $500,000 to $1 million in a Nebraska metal building manufacturing company.

42. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)
$6.99 million

The Georgia lawmaker’s net worth increased nearly 15 percent, or about $1 million, in the past year.

Much of that growth is the result of an increase in the value of a Minnesota Life annuities fund that Price lists in the $1 million to $5 million category. In 2006, he listed the annuities at a base value of $500,000.

Price also lists partial ownership for at least $600,000 worth of real estate in Roswell, Ga., including medical buildings and a condo development. Together with his wife, he also lists a vacant lot in St. Simons, Ga., valued at $1 million.

The Republican and his spouse also have multiple retirement and investment accounts valued at at least $4 million.

43. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
$6.20 million

Bingaman is something of a media mogul, having much of his worth invested in partnerships that hold stock in broadcast, print media and digital communications, among other things.

Bingaman’s net worth appears to have dropped by almost 20 percent from 2006 to 2007, as his wife sold off $2 million worth of stock from a Goldman Sachs investment account. The couple also put up nearly $400,000 in “capital calls” for various investments.

44. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
$5.88 million

DeLauro remains financially steady, reporting an identical figure for her net worth two years in a row.

The Connecticut Democrat’s wealth comes primarily from the stake her husband, pollster Stan Greenberg, holds in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, valued at $5 million to $25 million.

DeLauro’s only debt is a loan from Chase Auto in Phoenix, listed at $15,000 to $50,000.

45. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)
$5.86 million

The retiring Senator has assets scattered across a handful of brokerage accounts, none of which by itself is worth more than $1 million. Last year he added two real estate investments — Under the Missouri Sky Properties and Golden Dome partners — worth nearly $300,000.

Warner reports no liabilities.

46. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
$5.77 million

Speier, a newcomer to Congress, owns four California properties with a combined value of at least $3 million, which propels her onto this list. She is also boosted by her husband’s assets, including more than $1 million worth of stock in a California investment firm.

Her disclosure form lists no liabilities.

47. Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.)
$5.67 million

In August 2007, Linder sold his holdings in Grayling Industries, a Georgia manufacturer of plastic packaging, for $5 million to $25 million, netting a capital gain of more than $5 million.

His financial disclosure form shows two new Schwab money market accounts, one in his name and one in his wife’s, both listed as having a value of $1 million to $5 million. The couple also have two other IRA funds listed in the same category. Linder’s wife also owns three companies holding Mississippi timber land worth at least $700,000.

48. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
$5.50 million

A developer before he came to Congress, Neugebauer remains active in land and real estate dealings. According to his disclosure forms, in 2007 he sold properties valued at a minimum of $180,000 and bought properties worth at least $317,000, and he holds a passel of other properties, including a D.C. town house. He also bought $1 million to $5 million in U.S. treasury bills last year.

49. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
$5.49 million

Though he is among the wealthiest Members of Congress, Kohl’s financial disclosure fails to do him justice under Roll Call’s methodology.

The owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, Kohl values the NBA team at more than $50 million, the highest category available on the forms. But according to Forbes, the team’s estimated value in 2007 was $264 million.

Using that figure would put Kohl’s net worth at about $219 million, but his liabilities cancel out most of his assets.

The Wisconsin lawmaker’s debts are also tied to the basketball team, including three promissory notes from the NBA credit facility combined to value at least $55 million. Kohl also lists a promissory note to himself from the Bucks for more than $50 million.

The Senator also lists a blind trust valued at more than $50 million.

50. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)
$5.02 million

Emanuel’s blind trust appears to have lost a few hundred thousand dollars in value over the past year, resulting in a disclosure report that falsely indicates he lost almost half his personal wealth.

In 2006, he listed the blind trust at $5 million to $25 million; last year it was listed as from $1 million to $5 million. In a separate filing with the ethics committee, Emanuel reported that as of June 30, the value of the trust was $4.1 million. If that number were reported on his disclosure form, it would raise his minimum wealth to about $8 million.

Senator Hutchison Urges Senator Reid To Bring DC Gun Bill To The Senate Floor

Taken from the website of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
------------------------------------------------------


WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Texas’s senior Senator, today sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asking that he allow a vote before the end of the 110th Congress on legislation that codifies the Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller, also known as the D.C. Gun Ban case. The letter was cosigned by 46 Senate colleagues.

“In June the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that the D.C. Gun Ban was unconstitutional,” said Sen. Hutchison. “It’s time for the will of the bipartisan majority of the Senate to pass legislation affirming the second amendment rights for all D.C. residents.”

The letter was signed by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Wayne Allard (R-CO), John Barrasso (R-WY), Max Baucus (D-MT), Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Larry Craig (R-ID), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Pete Domenici (R-NM), John Ensign (R-NV), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mel Martinez (R-FL), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Sununu (R-NH), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Thune (R-SD), David Vitter (R-LA), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

On September 17, 2008, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act, which returns second amendment rights to the residents of the District of Columbia.

TEXT OF THE LETTER

September 18, 2008
The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Leader Reid:

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right. In DC v. Heller, the court affirmed that the District of Columbia’s ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right. The majority held “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

For more than thirty years, the District of Columbia has subjected residents to the most prohibitive gun control laws of any city in the nation, requiring rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or disassembled. Despite the Court’s ruling in June, the District of Columbia city council has continued to exact onerous and unconstitutional firearm regulations on law-abiding residents.

Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act. This bipartisan bill was overwhelmingly approved with a vote of 266-152. We ask you to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes.

Senator Inhofe Urged Senator Reid To Bring DC Gun Bill To Senate Floor

Taken From Senator Inhofe's Website
--------------------------------------

September 22, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has joined a bipartisan group of Senators to ensure that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the DC gun ban is upheld and that DC gun owners' rights are fully restored, through the Senate passage of the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

"In June, by overturning the DC gun ban law, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right." Senator Inhofe said. "To ensure that D.C. residents' gun ownership rights are fully restored and law enforcement has full authority to protect our Nation's capital, the Senate needs to join the House and pass the National Capital Security and Safety Act."

A letter signed by Senator Inhofe and 46 other Senators was sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday, September 19, calling on Sen. Reid to allow full consideration of the National Capital Security and Safety Act prior to the conclusion of the 110th Congress. The National Capital Security and Safety Act requires the District of Columbia to revise its firearms laws and regulations as necessary to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The bill, H.R. 6842, passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, September 17, with an overwhelming majority vote of 266-152.

Full Text of the Letter:

"On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right. In DC v. Heller, the court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right. The majority held "that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

For more than thirty years, the District of Columbia has subjected residents to the most prohibitive gun control laws of any city in the nation, requiring rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or disassembled. Despite the Court's ruling in June, the District of Columbia city council has continued to exact onerous and unconstitutional firearm regulations on law-abiding residents.

This week the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act. This bipartisan bill was overwhelmingly approved with a vote of 266-152. We ask you to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."

Text Of Bill To Rescue The Financial Markets

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Late-night Comedians Lay Off Obama

If Mr. Obama is all about fairness, he should tell the late night comedians to bring the number of jokes about him up to parity with Senator McCain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story is below and the link to it is here.

A hilarious new study of late-night political jokes, due to be released later today, finds the network comedians clearly avoiding humor about Democratic candidate Barack Obama, while piling the jokes on President Bush and Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs finds that only cable's Comedy Central -- whose primary comedians, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, more closely follow the day's headlines, which have been dominated by Obama -- has slightly more jokes about the freshman Illinois senator.

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert who's 44 years old and looks it

The study covered all jokes between Jan. 1 and July 31 in late-night monologues by Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Stewart and Colbert.

Apparently, Jimmy Kimmel was not deemed funny enough to be included, which should give his writers some ammo for tonight's show.

The center found that the network shows broadcast only 169 jokes about Obama, compared with 428 about Bush. McCain drew 328 jokes. Hillary Clinton, who dropped out of the presidential race and much political news in early June, still drew more than twice as many attempted yuk lines (382) as Obama.

On Comedy Central, Obama and McCain were close, with 207 and 201, respectively, while Clinton and Bush nearly tied at 179 and 177, respectively.

Combining the laugh lines from all five shows, Bush was the ...

... most mocked, with 605; Clinton had 562; McCain got 549; and Obama trailed, with 382.

Letterman had the most fun at Clinton's expense, with 146 jokes about her and only 46 about Obama. Leno had the most Bush jokes (208), with Clinton right behind at 204.

Colbert worked McCain over the most, with 129 jokes, compared with 91 for Obama and 79 on Clinton. An example: "It's time the media started trumpeting McCain's exciting story. He's old, and no one likes him."

It'll come as a huge surprise to everyone that the main focus of jokes about Vietnam veteran McCain was his age, which is 71. "McCain was asked how he's going to conserve energy," said Leno, who is 58 and being forced to retire from NBC next year. "He said by taking three naps a day."

Obama's recent Mideast and European tour "may strike some as presumptuous," said Stewart, who's 45. "In fact, I joked that Obama would be stopping in Bethlehem to visit the manger where he was born."

Leno on 60-year-old Clinton: "Only in America could a woman who's married to a man from Hope go to a town called Unity and fake something called Sincerity."

The study did not explore why Obama got off so lightly on the network shows from New York and Burbank. So we'll all just have to guess: probably out of simple respect for Obama's long public service.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Black Republicans Versus Black Democrats

Obama inspires black Republicans to switch parties

The Associated Press

Thu, Aug 21, 2008 (11:18 a.m.)

Sen. Barack Obama isn't just inspiring black voters to register in large numbers as he gets closer to being the Democratic presidential nominee. Evidence indicates that he's motivating some black Republicans to switch parties.

The only three states that track voting registration by party and race show black Republican registration dropping slightly since the beginning of the year.

Florida has 81,512 more black Democrats compared to a loss of 784 black Republicans; Louisiana has 34,325 more black Democrats, while the number of black Republicans dropped by 907; North Carolina has 92,356 more black Democrats and 2,850 fewer black Republicans.

While the number of blacks who have left the GOP for the Democratic Party can't be pinpointed, it's not hard to find voters who have made the switch.

"That's happening in a lot of places," said Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who tracks racial trends.

In Florida, it's happening at a time when the state Republican Party has made black voter recruitment a priority _ one that is more difficult with Obama's success.

Whitfield Jenkins of Ocala became a Republican nearly four decades ago, abandoning the Democrats out of anger when black voters helped elect a state lawmaker who later opposed a state holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. In 2006, Jenkins helped Republican Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign, but this year he switched back to the Democratic Party for one reason: Obama.

"Really early in his presidential campaign, when I got the opportunity to listen intently to his ideas and his platforms, I immediately said, 'This is beyond belief,'" Jenkins said. "I joined the effort and it became clear to me that I was better able to work in my community in a broad way and support this outstanding candidate as a Democrat."

Overall, Florida now has nearly 1.1 million black Democrats, compared to just under 64,000 black Republicans. Louisiana has about 704,000 black Democrats and 26,000 black Republicans, and North Carolina has more than 1 million black Democrats and just under 44,000 black Republicans.

Three other states _ Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina _ track voter registration by race, but voters don't register with parties. Each has seen large increases in black registration over recent seven-month periods, Georgia by almost 123,000, South Carolina by 43,198 Alabama by 20,844.

The biggest impact could be in Florida, where polls show a tight race between Obama and Republican John McCain. President Bush carried the state by only 537 votes in 2000. Democrats believe the result would have been different if not for problems in largely black precincts.

"If it's going to be a close election, it could be a huge factor," said Kevin Hill, a Florida International University political science professor. "Eighty-two thousand _ that's a lot of voters."

And while Bush won by a more comfortable 381,000 votes in 2004, the Obama campaign notes that 600,000 black voters stayed home. The campaign is also targeting nearly 600,000 black Floridians who aren't registered to vote.

"You're going to see some turnout like you've never seen before in the state of Florida," said Tony Hill, a black state senator from Jacksonville who is helping the Obama campaign.

Overall, Florida has about 4.4 million Democrats, 3.9 million Republicans and 2.3 million voters who aren't registered with either party.

Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer acknowledges that attracting more black Republicans has been difficult because of Obama's candidacy and says he doesn't expect a significant change in registration numbers this year despite party efforts to reach out to black voters.

"My goal here is that African-Americans who have voted Democratic their entire lives will begin to at least consider a Republican candidate," Greer said. "And then I'll move to the second goal of registration. But it is a slow process."

Some black Republicans say they're supporting Obama but not switching parties. They include former Florida Black Republican Council President Dorsey Miller, who helped former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush's campaigns and supports Crist.

Miller, though, said his support of Obama has nothing to do with race, but rather his dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and his concerns that McCain will continue President Bush's policies.

"It's a funny thing about Obama, but when I see him speak and see him on the stage, I don't see him as a black man, I just see a man. He symbolizes hope and we surely need hope," Miller said.

But he was quick to add that he could support another Republican for president.

"If he (Obama) stays eight years and then Jeb Bush says, 'I'm running,' I'm with Jeb."

Senator Obama On Justice Thomas

Senator Obama has said that Justice Clarence Thomas did not have the legal and intellectual heft required for elevation to the United States Supreme Court. Senator Obama went on to say that he disagreed with Justices Thomas and Scalia on their legal reasoning, but Senator Obama did not question Scalia’s legal mind. Senator Obama was speaking on August 16 at a forum organized by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church of Lakeforest, CA.

When President Bush nominated Justice Thomas, Mr. Bush said Justice Thomas was the best qualified for the nomination. That statement became a running joke for many liberals who had opposed the nomination, but it should not have been. Qualification for the Supreme Court, as well as for a host of other government positions, now includes many factors. Among those factors are, race, sex, judicial philosophy, political affiliation, experience, age and intellect. When Clarence Thomas is examined over all those factors, he may well have been the most qualified for the nomination.

Senator Obama is not the first to have questioned the intellect of Justice Thomas, but if Senator Obama was not wedded to the misinformed beliefs of those who still oppose Justice Thomas, Mr. Obama's disposition towards Justice Thomas would would have been more enlightened.

If Justice Thomas was not intellectually qualified, where are his opponents waving poorly argued opinions while saying “we told you so”?

Over his years on the Court, opponents made the claim that Justice Thomas was simply following Justice Scalia. In her book, “Supreme Conflict”, Jan Crawford Greenburg addressed that point. What she found is that in many cases, it was Justice Scalia who was following Justice Thomas’s reasoning.

In an online discussion published on the New York Times website on July 14, 2008, former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse, weighed in on the Thomas/Scalia relationship in response to a question: “….Although Justices Scalia and Thomas often agree on the bottom line, the jurisprudential paths they take to get there are often rather different. Justice Thomas is more the libertarian, and has explicitly called for overruling much of 20th-century constitutional law. Justice Scalia is much more wedded to precedent, even precedents of which he is highly critical. Neither takes marching orders from the other, as is obvious to close readers like yourself.”

Russia In Georgia

There seems to be little doubt Russia would like to see a reconstituted Soviet Union. Russia’s invasion of Georgia appears to be the first step in testing the will and the resolve of the western powers. History has examples in which bullying nations were allowed to grow in strength, because other nations resorted to appeasement in attempts to maintain the peace.

Russia is now conducting a test to see how much, if anything, the world has learned from history. In order to prevent yet another repeat of the past, all western powers should make it clear to Russia that if it does not withdraw from Georgia voluntarily, it will be ejected.

Russia has made a calculation that the US is in no position to use its military, and that other western nations would much rather beat their chests than form a coalition willing to use force.

Russia must be shown to be wrong, so that peace can be achieved now at a lower cost, rather than later, at a much higher cost.

Senator Obama Beats Senator McCain In Media Coverage

washingtonpost.com

Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, August 17, 2008; B06

Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.

In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.

This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.

This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.

Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and his trip overseas in July. The coverage of June 4, 5, 6 and 7 led to six Page 1 stories in The Post, including Obama's nomination victory, his strategy, elation among African Americans over the historic nature of his win and his fundraising advantage. Then he made an appearance at Nissan Pavilion with Virginia's Gov. Timothy Kaine and Sen. James Webb, and it became a local Page 1 story. During those few days, there was one Page 1 reference to an inside-page story about McCain going after Clinton's disgruntled supporters.

When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen. While there was no front-page story about Obama on July 25, it seemed wrong not to count that day because a photo of him in Berlin dominated the front page. I also counted a story about a Post-ABC News poll concerning racism and its potential impact on the election; 3 in 10 of those polled acknowledged racial bias.

Not all Page 1 coverage has been favorable. Obama was hit right away with two Page 1 stories about Washington insider James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO, who was criticized for mortgage deals and then withdrew from vetting Obama's potential running mates. A story about Obama's former Chicago church reminded readers of the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. There were also stories with a favorable cast -- about his patriotism, his first appearance with Clinton and the coverage from his foreign trip.

McCain's Page 1 stories were a mix -- a story about the flap over former senator Phil Gramm's comment about a "nation of whiners" over the economy and a story about conservatives wanting to battle McCain on the party platform. But there also were stories about plans to make the federal government more environmentally responsible and McCain's proposal for offshore drilling.

The single most revealing story about McCain -- and one of the best Post stories on either candidate -- was a top-of-the-front-page look at McCain's intellect. The story, by veteran reporter and editor Robert G. Kaiser, was the kind of analysis that tells readers something they didn't know. It was neither positive nor negative, just revealing and insightful.

Another favorite was by Business reporter Lori Montgomery on how both candidates will have trouble lowering the deficit with their spending plans. A Style & Arts change of pace was movie critic Stephen Hunter's look at McCain and Obama as film icons-- McCain as John Wayne and Obama as Will Smith.

Page 1 coverage isn't all that counts, but it is the most visible. Certainly there were many stories on the Politics page and elsewhere in the paper. (I'm not counting opinion columns.) The Trail, The Post's politics blog, had dozens of short items about both candidates, all interesting to political junkies. Post inside coverage has been a mix of horse-race coverage -- stories about endorsements, advisers, who can win where -- and issues stories.

Style stories have dealt with the Internet, voters and volunteers, and the cultural aspects of the campaigns. Cindy McCain was featured in a big Style spread and Michelle Obama in a Metro story about her recent visit to Virginia.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.

"The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."

Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.