A wish-list for a Democratic Congress.

In Montana, Jon Tester has been declared the victor. A recount will most likely be asked for in Virginia. (We here at DHAIP would love to say to the GOP: "Get over it. You lost." They themselves have recited this mantra for the past six years, in reference to the initial "election" of Mr. Bush. The irony would be delicious, but also crass. Let the recount proceed, then... we'll wait. On a related note, I suspect the Republicans are now rather grateful that their attempt to eliminate the filibuster fell through....)

This administration has not been terribly generous with information. Mr. Bush has become more publicly available than he once was, but he clearly doesn't know very much about anything useful. Mr. Cheney, who undoubtedly has more interesting things stored in his memory banks, to date has undergone little pressure from Congress to face the camera and speak. The chance for a deeper acquaintance with our VP, and indeed with the actions of our government, is not one for the Congress to pass over.

Thus, as a polite request to our new batch of legislators, we would greatly enjoy receiving some more information about a few trifling matters.

Of the following excellent list, we ourselves are most interested in these:

3. The scandal: A lawsuit has claimed it is illegal for Dick Cheney to keep the composition of his 2001 energy-policy task force secret. What's the big deal? The New Yorker's Jane Mayer has suggested an explosive aspect of the story, citing a National Security Council memo from February 2001, which "directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the 'melding' of ... 'operational policies towards rogue states,' such as Iraq, and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.'" In short, the task force's activities could shed light on the administration's pre-9/11 Iraq aims.

The problem: The Federal Advisory Committee Act says the government must disclose the work of groups that include non-federal employees; the suit claims energy industry executives were effectively task force members. Oh, and the Bush administration has portrayed the Iraq war as a response to 9/11, not something it was already considering.

...

7. Halliburton's Vanishing Iraq Money

The scandal: In mid-2004, Pentagon auditors determined that $1.8 billion of Halliburton's charges to the government, about 40 percent of the total, had not been adequately documented...

The outcome: The Defense Contract Audit Agency has "strongly" asked the Army to withhold about $60 million a month from its Halliburton payments until the documentation is provided.

...

11. The scandal: According to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," the Bush administration diverted $700 million in funds from the war in Afghanistan, among other places, to prepare for the Iraq invasion.

The problem: Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies." And the emergency spending bill passed after Sept. 11, 2001, requires the administration to notify Congress before changing war spending plans. That did not happen.

The outcome: Congress declined to investigate. The administration's main justification for its decision has been to claim the funds were still used for, one might say, Middle East anti-tyrant-related program activities.

And so on. Trust us, they're all good.

And whatever happened to that 2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that the Defense Department could not "track"? We're willing to bet you've forgotten about that -- curiously the item fell out of the news the very next day. Not to boast, but we did not forget.

And we would be extremely interested in finding out the current state of the investigation into the anthrax attacks of 2001. Remember those? Curiously, in all the furor over terrorism and security, this has become a cold case. Surely this unique and oddly-timed act of bioterrorism can't be thought of as irrelevant. With numerous accusations of foot-dragging and, well, worse, being tossed about by irresponsible types, wouldn't it be wise to settle the matter once and for all?

We've got others -- oh do we have others -- but some action on these matters would be a fine start, no?