Forbes: Conn Lawmakers Secure Gas Probe

WASHINGTON - The Government Accountability Office has agreed to a request by the Connecticut congressional delegation to look at how refinery practices can drive up gasoline prices.

Lawmakers said Monday they were concerned that consumers may have been victimized by gas price manipulation. They asked congressional investigators to probe the role refinery outages could have in artificially raising gas prices.

"As oil prices hit record highs and gasoline prices creep upward, due in part to refinery outages, I am determined to protect Connecticut families from gas price manipulation," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., in a statement.

Rep. Joseph Courtney, D-Conn., said he hoped the study would spur stricter oversight of refiners.

"Our nation's refiners have operated with little oversight for decades, and have suffered little recourse for repeated outages and downtime," Courtney said in a statement. "Eastern Connecticut's consumers pay some of the highest prices for fuel in the country and they deserve answers."

The lawmakers had asked for a GAO study in a May letter that noted that the average retail price of regular gasoline had risen to more than $3.10 per gallon. The GAO review is expected to begin next month, officials said.

"This GAO investigation will shed some light on refining capacity and whether these skyrocketing gas prices are the result of market manipulation," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in a statement.

Sen. Joe Lieberman blamed government antitrust enforcers for failing to act amid a wave of mergers by refining firms.

"If the federal government's antitrust enforcers had not stood by as refining companies merged and merged again, then we would have a competitive market to prevent price manipulation," Lieberman, I-Conn., said in a statement.

Forbes.com, Associated Press, 9/24/07

Hartford Courant: The Poster Child

Washington- President Bush is poised to sign legislation overhauling the nation's college student loan program, and University of Connecticut senior Trea McPherson can claim some credit for the success.

The 21-year-old political science major has been a Washington presence - critics say a convenient prop - this fall as the bill snaked its way through Congress. George Miller, the California Democrat who runs the House Education and Labor Committee, told McPherson, "you've been to more press conferences than I have."

And for good reason, say supporters of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which they're calling the "single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill" more than 60 years ago.

McPherson is the human face on legislation that would cut interest rates in half on subsidized loans over the next four years; substantially increase the maximum Pell Grants, which go to needy students; provide tuition aid to qualified students who agree to become teachers in high-poverty areas; and allow loan forgiveness after 10 years of public service to prosecutors, military service members, librarians, firefighters, nurses and others.

The White House and many Republican leaders have been wary of the bill, worried that it will actually increase the cost of borrowing. They're concerned that many private lenders, whose subsidies are being cut, will be more reluctant to make loans.

"Despite its lofty name, this legislation does nothing at all to reduce the cost of college," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.

But that's been a hard argument to make when people like Trea McPherson are hanging around."

His situation is compelling," said Kevin Bruns, executive director of America's Student Loan Providers, a Washington group that opposes the bill. "People like him put a face on the issue and get attention from college papers, blogs and TV."

McPherson was discovered through U.S. PIRG [Public Interest Research Groups], one of the bill's most active supporters. The Egg Harbor Township, N.J., resident became active on the UConn campus fighting for ways to reduce the cost of college. He eventually became the state ConnPIRG board chairman in the last school year and helped register voters on campus.

His work paid off - six times as many students voted in 2006 as had voted in 2002, and newly elected Rep. Joseph Courtney, D-2nd District, gave UConn, and McPherson, a lot of the credit for his victory.

McPherson's journey to Washington began after the election. New House Speaker Nancy D. Pelosi made reducing college costs one of her biggest priorities, and U.S. PIRG, while nonpartisan, was eager to help.

Luke Swarthout, its higher education advocate, knew Connecticut well; four years ago, while still a student at Amherst College, he became a U.S. PIRG official.

So when U.S. PIRG needed "real people" to help push the cause this year, it turned to McPherson as well as others. He fit the qualifications well: A middle-class student (his father is a manager at a nuclear plant, his mother is a bookkeeper), $18,000 in student loans (a big amount, but not too big, so the middle class can relate) and a desire to go to law school once he graduates next year.

The 2007 legislation could help him and his sister, now a sophomore at St. John's University in New York, in several ways: It could reduce the 6.8 percent interest rates on student loans, and it could help with their loans if McPherson becomes a prosecutor, as he hopes to do.

"The whole point is that the bill will help students start their lives faster," he said. "Without this help I may or may not have gone to law school right away. Now I'll definitely go" after graduating from UConn next year.

He quickly found a receptive audience for these views in Washington. U.S. PIRG brought him and other students to the city in January, where he appeared at a news conference with Courtney, Miller, Senate Education Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and others as they touted legislation.

His awe evaporated quickly as he found the lawmakers down to earth. "I asked Joe Courtney could I get a picture," McPherson said. "He laughed and said, `After what UConn did for me, I'll build you a statue.''

Earlier this month, he returned for a press conference with Kennedy and Courtney, though he barely made it, arriving an hour before it began. Someone put a statement in front of him to read; McPherson chuckled and politely informed everyone he would tell his story in his own words.

"It's not that I didn't want to say what they told me. I didn't really even know I was speaking that day until I arrived," McPherson said.

Everything worked out, and he and Kennedy wound up talking informally about college, social justice and life in general.

Last Tuesday, McPherson was back, this time to stand quietly with two other students behind Pelosi at her bill-signing ceremony and heard himself touted as a hero.

Skeptics could only wince.

The lenders, Bruns said, could not counter all this. "There are privacy laws, and we have to be very careful about approaching a student and saying, `Would you show up in Washington?'"

Others thought it was unfair to students to trot them out and make them human posters for political aims.

"It might have helped when this tactic was new five years ago," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union. But the fact that people like McPherson are subsidized by interest groups, and are almost ubiquitous at Capitol Hill events, dilutes the impact, he said.

Don't tell that to McPherson or Courtney.

"He personifies the message," the congressman said flatly.

Hartford Courant, David Lightman, Washington Bureau Chief, 9/24/07

Connecticut Post: State Democrats scoff at Bush plan

WASHINGTON — President Bush's upbeat assessment of the Iraq war and an announced plan to begin withdrawing some troops before Christmas drew a sharp rebuke from Connecticut Democrats in Congress who claim it is simply more of the same.

"Moving us in 10 months to where we were 10 months ago is not progress. It is the very definition of status quo," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. "Not only is the president not offering us anything new; he's insulting our intelligence."

Iraqi leaders have failed to take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation, and "staying the course" only serves to postpone that effort, said Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5. "The president's plan to keep the same number of troops on the ground as he had before the surge doesn't solve our fundamental problem in Iraq," he said.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, however, said he supported Bush's assessment that enough progress has been made to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq to at least pre-surge levels.

"I would certainly recommend that we not stop there but continue to bring back more troops each and every month because Iraqis are getting more capable," he said.

Bush spoke Thursday evening from the Oval Office, outlining a "plan for success in Iraq" that would allow for about 5,700 American troops to return home by Christmas and as many as 30,000 by next July. "The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy," he said.

The address followed testimony that Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker gave to Congress earlier in the week.

Bush's strategy would reduce the number of American troops fighting in Iraq to about 130,000 by next July — a level about equal to the pre-surge number. He said it offers a bridge to those who desire American troops to come home and those who believe U.S. security depends on a stable Iraq.

"The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together," Bush said.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said Bush's announced reduction in troops is a "deceptive effort to assuage public opinion."

"This is more of the same, and sadly, more loss of American lives and rising costs, with no evidence of political change in Iraq," she said. "Redeploying troops over the course of nearly a year to pre-surge levels represents nothing new and is clearly far from the change of direction our country needs."

DeLauro said Bush is being forced to reduce troop levels next year because there are no replacements available without reducing time between active duty deployments.

"The public will see through this new effort to mislead the country, and I am confident it will lead to increased support in Congress for a change in course," she said.

Dodd said he plans to introduce an amendment to this year's defense budget blueprint that would set an enforceable deadline for completing the redeployment of troops from Iraq by April 30.

"None of our choices are easy, but they are clear," Dodd said. "We must choose the policy that is best for our nation, even in the face of extreme difficulty. Every additional day we 'stay the course' in Iraq, our nation is less safe and the people of Iraq get further away from coming together to fashion a political and diplomatic solution to their civil conflict."

Shays believes the Iraq military should be able to handle internal security of their country within 12 to 18 months, although American forces would likely be needed along the borders to discourage Iran, Syria or Turkey from going into Iraq.

Shays also dismissed criticism that the Iraqi government is dysfunctional, suggesting as Bush did that progress is being made from the bottom up on several key benchmarks — including reconciliation and oil revenue sharing.

Shays said he would still support legislation to require President Bush to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, but opposes calls for a quick redeployment of troops, fearing that it would leave Iraq in the hands of Iran.

"I find it particularly irresponsible for us to leave precipitously," he said. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2, said that drawing down troops to pre-surge levels is not progress. "Americans understand what the president does not — that this conflict will only come to a conclusion through a change in policy, a diplomatic surge in the region and a real draw down of American troops. Instead, the president proposes more of the same and a war without end," he said.

Courtney said the General Accountability Office's independent analysis of progress in Iraq found that its government had failed to meet 15 of 18 benchmarks for success. "After four long years in Iraq, our troops should not be used to prop up a failed policy that is not moving Iraq toward stability," he said.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman was not available for comment Thursday because he was observing the Jewish New Year. Rosh Hashanah is a two-day holiday that began at sundown on Wednesday.

Connecticut Post, Peter Urban, 9/13/07

Hartford Courant: No Political Progress

Opinion Piece By: Joe Courtney

In January 2007, President Bush announced what he termed a short-term increase in troop levels in Iraq to provide the Iraqi government and people time and security to achieve political reconciliation and the end of sectarian violence.

I opposed this so-called "surge" then because I was deeply concerned about the impact of this policy on all of our volunteer troops who, four years into this conflict, were not receiving adequate rest time, resources and training. Just as important, I did not have confidence in the Bush administration's commitment to the diplomatic effort to push Iraqi leadership to set aside sectarian loyalties and move forward in the interest of their nation.

Unfortunately, recent testimony by our top military and civilian officials in Iraq earlier this week, and independent reports last week, indicate that while some uneven gains have been made on the security front by U.S. forces, there is a disheartening lack of progress on the political front in Iraq and in the region toward the goal of stability.

Last week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office delivered an independent report to the House Armed Services Committee on which I serve. The GAO found that the Iraqi government failed to meet 15 of the 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for progress in political, security and economic areas.

Most alarming was the finding that only one of eight critical political benchmarks had been met, including the failure to make progress on the critical distribution of oil revenues.

This paints a frustrating picture for the American people. Despite the addition of 35,000 members of the world's finest fighting force and the allocation of hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars, American diplomats and Iraqi national politicians have failed to achieve anything more than token gestures toward political stability.

Indeed, the GAO reported that the national government of Iraq has lost critical Sunni support and is still helpless to confront violent Shia militias that control large neighborhoods in Baghdad. These militias, in defiance of the central government, continue to control the delivery of essential services such as electricity, water and community policing.

At our hearing we were presented with the following prognosis: On the one hand Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, recommends keeping U.S. troops at the current surge level for at least another eight months, until July 2008. Yet, at the same time, Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified that it was unrealistic to expect any progress in the next six months on the political benchmarks that the Iraqis themselves defined as necessary for reconciliation.

This begs simple, yet critical, questions: Why? Why should young American men and women be asked to continue to serve and sacrifice on behalf of a foreign government unwilling to make progress in bringing its nation together?

Why isn't the administration concentrating a "surge" of diplomatic effort to match the military sacrifice to get Iraq closer to the end game of political stability? These are the central questions before Congress and the American people today.

Our troops have performed extraordinarily under difficult circumstances, and have done everything we have asked of them - and more.

I was proud to see their will and determination first hand during a Memorial Day trip to Baghdad this May. However, that trip and the recent testimony before Congress make it clear to me that the future of our involvement in Iraq is not contingent simply on the success of our troops, but rather the willingness of the Iraqi people and government to seek the goals of peace and security together.

The flurry of testimony and reports from the battlefield leaves no doubt that we must change our course in Iraq. We need a U.S. diplomatic surge in the region - inexcusably overdue from the Bush administration. And we need to initiate a significant drawdown of our military involvement in Iraq for the sake of our overextended troops, and to signal that the patience of the American people is not infinite and the time for serious political action by Iraq's leaders is now.

In the final analysis, the Bush plan over the next 11 months is to slowly draw down our troop levels to the same number we had in January 2007, with absolutely no end in sight after that. Our troops and the American people deserve better. Our men and women in uniform, our military readiness and our national security require a real policy change in Iraq.

9/12/07, The Hartford Courant