Arm the Senate!

Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol?

I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.

If they believe that, why don't they live by it?

Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?

Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn't Congress set an example in its own workplace?

So why not let Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pack the weapon of his choice on the Senate floor? Thune is the author of an amendment that would have allowed gun owners who had valid permits to carry concealed weapons into any state, even states with more restrictive gun laws. The amendment got 58 votes last week, two short of the 60 it needed to pass.

Judging by what Thune said in defense of his amendment, he'd clearly feel safer if everyone in the Capitol could carry a gun.

"Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially because the Supreme Court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from other individuals," he said. I guess that Thune doesn't think those guards and the Capitol Police have any obligation to protect him.

He went on: "The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed."

In other words, keeping guns out of the Capitol makes all our elected officials far less safe. If just a few senators had weapons, the criminals wouldn't know which ones were armed, and all senators would be safer, right? Isn't that better than highly intrusive gun control -- i.e., keeping people with guns out of the Capitol in the first place?

"Additionally," Thune said helpfully, "research shows that when unrestricted conceal and carry laws are passed, not only does it benefit those who are armed, but it also benefits others around them such as children."

This is a fantastic opportunity. Arming all our legislators would make it safer for children, so senators could feel much more secure bringing their kids into the Capitol. This would promote family values and might even reduce the number of highly publicized extramarital affairs.

During the debate, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) quoted a constituent who told him: "When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon."

Why shouldn't Vitter feel equally safe in the Capitol? Why should he have to go out on the streets to carry a gun?

The pro-gun folks love their studies. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) offered this one: "A study for the Department of Justice found 40 percent of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared the potential victims would be armed."

That doesn't tell us much about the other 60 percent, but what the heck? If it's good enough for Barrasso, let the good senator introduce the amendment to allow concealed carry in the Capitol.

Barrasso already dislikes the District of Columbia's tough restrictions on weapons. "The gun laws in the District outlaw law-abiding citizens from self-defense," he complained. So go for it, Senator! Make our nation's Capitol an island of firearms liberty in a sea of oppression.

Don't think this column is offered lightly. I want these guys to put up or shut up. If the NRA's servants in Congress don't take their arguments seriously enough to apply them to their own lives, maybe the rest of us should do more to stop them from imposing their nonsense on our country.

ejdionne@washpost.com

Guns, Geysers and Mr. Reid

By GAIL COLLINS, NY Times

Whenever life feels dark and difficult, it’s always helpful to think about people who have it worse. Be thankful, for instance, that you’re not one of those co-pilots for regional airlines who make $16,000 a year and have to commute from Seattle to Newark. Or a person currently riding in a plane with a $16,000 co-pilot in the cockpit. Be thankful you aren’t a Chrysler dealer. Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Nothing is simple if you’re Harry Reid. This week the Senate was working on a consumer rights bill for credit card holders when Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, suddenly proposed an amendment to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

This would seem relevant only if consumers are worried that they will not be able to use their American Express at a souvenir stand in Yellowstone, and will need to hold up the cashier in order to bring home a much-anticipated geyser refrigerator magnet.

Coburn said it was not a “gotcha” aimed at forcing the opposition into a corner on a hot-button issue, although when you say you’re offering an amendment “to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges” I think you are kind of stacking the deck.

But one way or another, the Democrats clearly did feel trapped into placating the gun lobby. Twenty-seven of them wound up voting yes on an amendment that would arm the tourists and make final passage of the credit card bill more complicated. Including Reid.

Then Reid tried to get the Senate to confirm David Hayes, Obama’s nominee to be deputy secretary of the interior. This proved to be impossible even though Hayes was both uncontroversial and a man whose qualifications for the job include having already been deputy secretary of the interior. But no, the Republicans threatened a filibuster because Senator Robert Bennett of Utah was ticked off at the Department of the Interior for canceling the sale of oil and gas leases on public lands in his state.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar told Bennett that he’d review the leases and could probably reinstate some of the sales, but that it would be a lot easier to do all that if he had, um, a deputy. No deal.

This is exactly the sort of procedural roadblock that you need 60 votes to overcome, and people are beginning to ask why the majority leader can’t handle these things since Arlen Specter’s defection gave the Democrats 60 votes. Do not say this to Harry Reid! For one thing, Al Franken is still in court in Minnesota, and when you ask the Republicans how long they’re going to litigate the results of an election that took place last November, they murmur vaguely about how Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Anyhow, Ted Kennedy is sick and Robert Byrd is 91 and it’s a miracle some of the other ones can find their way to the Capitol. Even if you eventually get all 60 Democratic votes in the same room, how do you get them to do the same thing? You will remember that when Specter came over, Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska instantly said: “They might have a 60-member majority. That doesn’t mean they have 60 votes.” Reid must have found the point Nelson was making less chilling than the fact that the senator kept referring to his own party as “they.”

Next week, some supporters of Dawn Johnsen are hoping that Reid will take up Johnsen’s nomination to run the Office of Legal Counsel, the place where the president goes for advice on whether whatever he wants to do is legal. This causes the majority leader’s office to hold its collective head and moan.

Johnsen actually is controversial. She was once a lawyer for the National Abortion Rights Action League. Twenty years ago, she put a footnote in a legal brief saying that forcing a woman to give birth to a child against her will was “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude.” This has been creatively translated into the charge that Johnsen, the mother of two, believes pregnancy is akin to slavery.

Also, she has spoken out so forcefully against the Bush administration’s politicizing the Office of Legal Counsel that Republicans are claiming she’d ... politicize the office.

The inevitable filibuster threats have been made. Since the Office of Legal Counsel doesn’t actually have anything to do with abortion, it might be reasonable for Reid to expect that anti-choice Democratic senators could throw him a vote on the procedural issues and then oppose the actual nomination, when Johnsen would only need 51 votes and Reid would not require their help.

That, however, would presume a degree of consistency that is hard to get in a place that holds one important aspect of credit card reform is giving people the ability to pack a handgun at the Grand Canyon.

Fixing Agriculture

NY Times Editorial

Tom Vilsack, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Agriculture Department has the merit of being unsatisfactory to both extremes of the farm-policy debates.

Zealous advocates of sustainable agriculture question his support of biotechnology, while partisans of the status quo find him insufficiently loyal to the system of farm subsidies. That leaves him with a very large center of support. He’ll need it to move this country’s broken agricultural policy in a new direction.

During his days as governor of Iowa, Mr. Vilsack embraced innovation — encouraging the use of farmland to produce energy from ethanol and wind power, while promoting better treatment of migrant workers. He has the additional advantage of having governed a state where small, innovative farms are emerging.

The department he will inherit, while responsible for extraordinary gains in research and productivity, has long favored the biggest farmers. That has produced a sterile landscape of factory farms, broken towns and endless miles of row crops like corn and soybeans.

Last year’s terrible farm bill left the old subsidy system essentially intact. But Mr. Vilsack can prepare the ground for the next one. He should endorse a modest cap on price supports so that they would benefit small farmers. He also has expressed a welcome desire to end the vertical integration in the packing industry that allows giant meatpackers to own the animals they process.

He also must take an impartial look at corn ethanol. Congress has mandated a big increase in production as a prelude to more advanced biofuels. But first the country needs an honest assessment of corn ethanol’s pluses and minuses, its effect on climate change and food prices and its reliability as a source of income for farmers.

The Agriculture Department also houses the Forest Service, which means Mr. Vilsack will be responsible for the national forests. The Bush administration has waged an eight-year assault on President Bill Clinton’s roadless rule, which offered permanent protection from commercial development to about 60 million roadless acres. Mr. Vilsack should reaffirm that rule and expand its protections to include Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.

The department’s programs influence many critical issues — conservation, nutrition, rural development and, through the food-stamp program, the well-being of lower-income Americans. These are powerful tools for change and equity. The next secretary must use them wisely.