Politics Daily

Emotions Run High at Rep. Peter King's Hearings on Radical Muslims in the U.S.

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-10T14:45:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, The Capitolist, International, Congress, Islam

After a firestorm of controversy, Rep. Peter King pressed ahead with his hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee Thursday examining the threat of radical Islam within the United States.

He defended his decision to investigate the role of the Muslim community in homegrown terrorism even as his colleagues accused him of singling out Muslims, suggesting that fanatics from other religions deserve similar scrutiny.

"There is nothing radical or un-American about holding these hearings," King, a New York Republican, told the Capitol Hill hearing overflowing with reporters, network television cameras, congressional staff and protesters.

He listed the numerous incidents and terrorist plots in the United Stated involving radicalized Islamists since the Sept. 11 attacks, including the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas; the "Ft. Dix Six," who were arrested before they could attack the New Jersey installation; and the arrest last year of a Portland-area man who had intended to detonate a bomb during the city's annual tree lighting.

"This committee cannot live in denial," King said, adding that he refuses to bend to "political correctness."

But the committee's ranking member, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), asked why King had not also investigated white supremacist and anti-government groups.

"Acknowledgment of a commitment to be responsible does not equal political correctness," Thompson told King, echoing the message of King's critics around the country, who have called him racist, compared him to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and implored him to scrap Thursday's session or broaden its focus in the days leading up to it.

Keith Ellison, Muslim Congressman, Breaks Into Tears at King's Hearing

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-10T11:49:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

Rep. Keith Ellison (R-Minn.), one of two Muslim Americans serving in Congress, broke into tears Thursday as he testified at the controversial hearing convened by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) to examine the threat of violent extremism within the Muslim community in America.

Ellison had been called before the House Homeland Security Committee to offer his perspective representing a congressional district with the largest Somali-American population in the country. In the past, Ellison has accused King of being "McCarthyistic" in his approach to the Muslim community and wasted no time taking the congressman to task again Thursday.

"We need to approach this through fair analysis and do no harm. I fear this hearing does not meet that standard," Ellison said to King. "When you ascribe the violent actions [of individuals] to an entire community, you assign blame to an entire community. This is the heart of scapegoating and stereotyping."

But Ellison's aggressive tone softened as he neared the end of his remarks and told the committee the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old paramedic and Muslim American from Queens, who died in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

"He was one of those brave first responders, who tragically lost his life in the 9/11 terrorist attack almost a decade ago," Ellison explained. As he told the story of the man wanting to be seen as "an all-American kid" and becoming a research assistant at Rockefeller University (while working as a paramedic part time), the congressman struggled to continue speaking.

"After the tragedy, some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith," Ellison said through tears, explaining that there was speculation that Hamdani had disappeared after the attack because he was in league with the attackers. His remains were later found in the rubble of the Twin Towers.

"Mohammad Salman Hamdani was a fellow American, who gave his life for other Americans," Ellison said through his tears. "He should not be identified as just another member of an ethnic group or just another religion, but as an American who gave everything to his fellow Americans."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Rep. Peter King's Hearing on American Muslims: How Radical? How Dangerous?

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-10T00:02:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Religion, The Capitolist, Congress, Islam

Rep. Peter King's controversial hearing today examining the threat of radical Islam will feature two men whose family members became caught up in violent extremism, with tragic consequences.

A glimpse of the hearing emerged Wednesday as critics implored the New York Republican to scrap the session or broaden its focus. But King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, defended his approach even as he faced threats as well as questions about his own past as a supporter of the anti-British Irish Republican Army.

On Wednesday, a group of more than 50 Democrats, including the two Muslims serving in the House, wrote to King, asking him to cancel the hearing or examine religions in addition to Islam.

Rival Budget Bills Fail in Senate, Shutdown Countdown Begins

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-09T17:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Budget, The Capitolist, Congress, Deficit, Economy

The Senate voted Thursday to defeat two rival plans to cut federal spending through the end of the year, reflecting deep divisions over the best course to tame the country's spiraling debt.

The impasse means that lawmakers will continue negotiations ahead of a March 18 deadline. That's when the current short-term spending measure expires and the government could shutdown without a new agreement.

The first bill, approved by House Republicans last month, was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56. All 53 Democrats and three Republicans voted against it. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) said the cuts in the GOP bill did not go far enough.

Budget Battle Puts Moderate Senators in the Hot Seat

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-09T06:44:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

As Democrats and Republicans ready their talking points for the budget battles ahead in Washington, the standoff over federal spending is putting each party's moderates in a political squeeze as they try to navigate between making cuts voters say they want without cutting federal programs their constituents say they need.

The first test is expected Wednesday, when senators will vote on two seven-month spending bills -- one proposal each from Democrats and Republicans on funding the government through October 2011, the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The GOP bill, passed last month by the House, would slice $61 billion from the current budget through cuts to programs dear to Democrats' hearts, like implementation of the health care reform bill, Pell grants, early learning programs, nutrition for women and children, and funding for Planned Parenthood.

Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democratic whip in the Senate, predicted that the House-passed measure would be difficult for some Republicans in the Senate to embrace.

"It is a painful vote for those who still cling to the belief that they are moderate Republicans. I don't want to name names, but I can think of a half-dozen Republican senators who do not want to be on the record for cutting funding for Planned Parenthood," Durbin told Politics Daily. "They may not want to be on record for some of the environmental cuts there. Now they're stuck, take it or leave it, and I think they want to leave it."

Democrats will be watching several moderate Republicans they see as possible pick-offs in 2012, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Richard Lugar of Indiana, to gauge their support for Republican cuts that Democrats call "draconian."

"The reckless Republican spending plan would cut 700,000 jobs across the country if these cuts are enacted into law," said Eric Schultz, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the budget votes will present just as much danger for moderate Democrats, some of whom struggled Tuesday to justify the smaller cuts championed by their party's leadership at a time when independent voters insist the lawmakers were elected to cut government spending significantly.

Unlike the $61 billion in cuts proposed by Republicans, the Democratic proposal would trim $6.5 billion this year by eliminating earmarks and zeroing out funds for several highway projects and programs that Obama has agreed to end.

Republicans say they'll be watching a half-dozen Democratic incumbents who the GOP believes will be vulnerable for a Republican defeat, based in part on the recent spike in federal spending. At the top of the list are Democrats in states that President Obama lost during his 2008 campaign, including Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

"Spending is up 24 percent over the last four years, the debt is now over $14 trillion, and the jobs they promised if they passed the stimulus have not come to fruition," said Brian Walsh, communications director for the National Senatorial Campaign Committee. "We're seeing all this spending, all his debt, and no jobs."

On Tuesday, the looming budget votes had some usually loquacious senators short on words, scurrying out of the reach of reporters' shouted questions about which way they planned to vote.

"I just don't want to talk to you about it," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said as she hopped into a senators-only elevator.

Sen. Ben Nelson, who is up for reelection in 2012, did talk Tuesday as he walked through a Capitol corridor surrounded by reporters, but he was mum on how he planned to vote.

"That's what I'll have to tell you later," Nelson said, putting the questions off until later.

But some moderate Democrats had made up their minds, even if it wasn't what their leaders wanted to hear.

Freshman Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) went to the Senate floor Tuesday morning to announce he would not vote for the Democrats' proposal, saying the $6.5 billion in cuts "doesn't nearly go far enough." But he also criticized the GOP plan, which "blindly hacks the budget," he said. But Manchin saved his harshest critique for Obama, who lost West Virginia by nearly 15 points in 2008. "He has failed to lead this debate," Manchin said.

The Senate will vote on the side-by-side proposals on Wednesday afternoon, when most senators said they believe both votes will fail.

"My guess is neither one of them will pass," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). "Then it will be back to the negotiating table."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy: Another Stopgap Budget Likely

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-08T12:30:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, predicted Tuesday that Congress will not come to an agreement on a year-long budget before the current spending agreement expires in 10 days.

"Because of the lack of action, Republicans will be prepared in the House to do another two- or three- or four-week [continuing resolution]," McCarthy told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "But each time, we're going to go at it taking more bites, making sure we have cuts out there that will make the economy stronger."

McCarthy blamed Democrats for the slow progress in the budget negotiations, which have failed to produce an agreement on how to fund the government beyond March 18.

Not only did Vice President Joe Biden leave the country a few days after being tapped as the White House point person in the talks, McCarthy faulted Democrats for failing to hold a vote on any year-long funding measures.

"I'm concerned about how seriously they're taking this," he said. "You can't negotiate with yourself."

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday that he would not vote for his own party's CR proposal, which would cut $6.5 billion, saying it "doesn't nearly go far enough." But he also criticized the GOP plan, which "blindly hacks the budget," and President Obama, who has "failed to lead this debate."

The Senate is expected to vote on two seven-month spending bills Tuesday afternoon -- one proposal each from Democrats and Republicans on funding the government through October 2011, the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The GOP bill, passed last month by the House, would slice $57 billion from the current budget year through cuts to programs dear to Democrats' hearts, like the health care reform bill, Pell grants, early learning programs, nutrition for women and children, and funding for Planned Parenthood.

On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called the Republican measure "a meat ax, hatchet, reckless budget."

The Democratic cuts would eliminate earmarks and zero out funds for several highway projects and programs that Obama has agreed to end.

But on Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted both votes would fail, leaving unanswered the question of how to fund the government beyond the next two weeks, and sending senators back to the negotiating table one more time.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

In Government Shutdown, President and Congress Would Still Get Paid

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-07T23:55:00+00:00

Filed under: Budget, Obama Administration, The Capitolist, Congress, Deficit, White House

As government agencies prepare their lists of employees who would be furloughed during a possible government shutdown, one fortunate group of Washingtonians doesn't have to worry about such things.

Under current law, the president, who earns $400,000 annually, and members of Congress, who draw $174,000, will still receive a paycheck during a budget impasse because their salaries are paid with mandatory, not appropriated, spending.

Not that the law couldn't change.

Last week, the Senate unanimously passed a bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) stipulating that the president and members of Congress would not be paid if the government shuts down over a spending impasse or if the country exceeds its debt limit, which budget experts say would happen later this year if Congress does not vote to raise the national debt ceiling.

"They shouldn't get their pay and they shouldn't get retroactive pay because this is a very basic responsibility that we have to keep the government running," Boxer said Monday of lawmakers taking home salaries during a shutdown.

Of course, the House and President Obama must approve the bill, too. On Monday, Boxer, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and the other co-sponsors of the legislation sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner calling on him to bring the measure up for a vote as soon as possible. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) has introduced the measure in the lower chamber.

"We request that the House immediately take up and pass this legislation in the same bipartisan spirit demonstrated by the Senate," the senators wrote to the speaker. "A government shutdown would be a disaster for our nation and for our economy. We must resolve our differences to avoid a shutdown - and if we cannot, none of us should receive a paycheck while the rest of the nation suffers the consequences."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

No Progress on Budget After Biden Huddles With Boehner, Other Hill Leaders

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-04T10:18:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

The White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to Capitol Hill Thursday in an effort to bring feuding Democrats and Republicans to the negotiating table over funding the federal government through Sept. 30.

But an hour after Biden went behind closed doors with the Hill's "Big Four" -- House Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- the participants emerged with little more than an agreement to allow the Senate to vote on the parties' wildly divergent budget-cutting proposals and an unusually short written statement from the famously verbose vice president.

"We had a good meeting, and the conversation will continue," the statement read.

The conversation Biden spoke of had begun earlier in the day with a bitter disagreement between the parties -- not only over how much money should be cut from this year's $4 trillion budget, but even over how much had already been trimmed.

Gene Sperling, the director of the president's National Economic Council, offered an additional $6.5 billion cut from the current budget. Along with $4 billion in cuts Congress approved earlier this week, Sperling said Democrats will have eliminated $50 billion in spending from President Obama's original budget proposal for the fiscal year. (That total reflects a default cut of $40 billion in December's continuing resolution, which locked in 2010 spending levels.)

Pelosi weighed in on the numbers, saying that the figure proved that Democrats would "meet Republicans halfway" toward their original goal of cutting $100 billion for the year.

But the GOP, led by Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, balked at the Democrats' numbers, saying their cuts will be to real budget numbers for the year, not something based on what the president had hoped to spend.

Cantor also called this week's $4 billion agreement nothing more than a start toward the $57 billion more they plan to cut this year, one week at a time, if necessary, until the Democrats agree to negotiate on larger cuts.

Cantor told Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer on the House floor: "I would expect the House to continue its process of cutting $2 billion a week until we can see where the gentleman's caucus, and then the Democratic leader in the Senate" are.

Beyond the disagreement over how much to slice from the budget, the two sides had little common ground Thursday over which federal programs to target to get the billions in savings they are seeking.

Pelosi called Republican-sponsored efforts to cut child nutrition, education and programs like Planned Parenthood non-starters.

"If the cuts are about undermining the education of our children, harming the creation of jobs, and also undermining our economic recovery, I think we have to subject those cuts to some pretty harsh scrutiny," she said.

Hoyer also stood his ground, saying the Republicans were showing no willingness to compromise.

"If that's the position, then I think we will not be able to reach agreement," he said.

As the two sides squabble over the billions they will or won't cut in 2011, all involved acknowledge that the current budget battle only serves as a staging ground for the much larger battles to come over the country's $14 trillion debt and the looming crises with entitlement spending that Congress will have to address in the near future.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal hours before the meeting with Biden, Boehner said that he plans to offer a budget for the next year that would begin to rein in the ballooning costs of Medicare and Social Security.

"People in Washington assume that Americans understand how big the problem is, but most Americans don't have a clue," he said. "Once they understand how big the problem is, I think people will be more receptive to what the possible solutions may be."

The speaker also offered a rare dose of optimism on the talks to solve the near-term budget impasse. "We can do this in two weeks," Boehner insisted. "I'm a glass-half-full guy."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Nancy Pelosi Raising Cash for Wisconsin Labor Fight

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-03T19:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, The Capitolist

Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the U.S. House and a well-known rainmaker for her party, is lending her fundraising prowess to the ongoing labor battles in Wisconsin, where the Republican governor threatens to eliminate public workers' collective bargaining rights.

On Thursday, Gov. Scott Walker also ordered the arrests of 14 Democratic lawmakers who are on the lam to avoid voting on his budget bill.

Pelosi sent an e-mail to Democratic supporters nationwide Thursday, asking them to pledge as little as $5 to help fight what she called Walker's "reckless assault on the middle class."

"Karl Rove and the very same special interests that Republicans are voting to protect are planning a massive campaign to defend their radical agenda," Pelosi wrote. "This deserves an immediate response."

Pelosi said she was responding to the announcement this week that American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, conservative organizations were co-founded by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, are working to raise $120 million to spend against Democratic candidates before the 2012 election.

On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Crossroads GPS effort promised that the money raised would fight "the torrent of outside money from unions and left-leaning groups" that he said they would raise.

In turn, Pelosi said Democrats would mount a "rapid response campaign" to push the message of union workers in Wisconsin and protect their right to collectively bargain.

"I will always stand up for the right to organize. This basic right ensures the fair treatment of middle-class workers," she wrote. "Will you stand with me?"

By 6 p.m. on Thursday, Pelosi had raised nearly half of her one-day goal of $100,000.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Senate Votes, 91-9, to Avoid Government Shutdown -- for Now

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-02T12:17:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Budget, Obama Administration, The Capitolist, Congress, Conservatives, Harry Reid, Deficit, Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama

With a midnight deadline looming on Friday, the Senate voted, 91-9, to pass a stopgap funding measure Wednesday to keep the federal government operating through March 18. Because the House approved the same bill Tuesday, it immediately went to President Obama for his signature.

The legislation, known as a continuing resolution (CR), will keep the lights on at federal agencies for the next two weeks while also retroactively cutting $4 billion from 2010 federal spending levels. The cuts had broad support because they took money from sources that Obama has already proposed to cut, such as earmarks and highway funding.

The president said he was glad to get the bipartisan bill, "but we cannot keep doing business this way. Living with the threat of a government shutdown every few weeks is not responsible, and puts our economic programs in jeopardy." Obama said he wants congressional leaders from both parties to begin meeting immediately with Vice President Joe Biden and other top administration aides to find "common ground on a budget that makes sure we are living within our means."

The landslide Senate vote on the short-term measure did little to bring Democrats and Republicans closer together on the larger questions of how to fund the government through the end of the year -- and which federal programs Congress should cut to do it. That's what Obama wants to talk about.

"This is a battle of the philosophies about policies -- where do we stand?" said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) before the vote.

Signaling the lines that will be drawn in the budget fights ahead, Lautenberg and other Democrats warned this week that Republicans, and the House majority in particular, are using the country's budget crisis to push their own conservative political agendas.

"We cannot permit these programs that are the heart and soul of our democratic society to be swept away by the position they take as auditors. This isn't an accounting office," Lautenberg said. "That's not what we're about. We're about helping people that need the help."

Before Wednesday's vote, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) accused Republicans of financing tax cuts for the wealthy and also wars abroad at the expense of lower-income groups.

"Are we going to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class?" Sanders asked on the Senate floor. "On the backs of the poor? On the backs of the poor, the elderly and the sick?"

But the Senate's budget hawks, both Democrats and Republicans, said that the current debate over $4 billion, or even $100 billion, in cuts is only a small part of the looming budget crisis the country is facing in the future.

"We cannot continue to go in the direction we're going," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). "The bill that the House sent us is a step in the right direction, but is far less than what is needed based on what's in front of us."

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, agreed: "We've got a $14 trillion debt, and what is all the energy and the focus on? A $4 billion question. What is wrong with this picture? We need a package, not of $4 billion but of $4 trillion."

Congressional negotiators will now turn their sights to hammering out a longer-term agreement and begin the difficult work of finding more money to slice out of the federal government at a time when demand for government services like Medicaid, jobless benefits and Social Security programs is at an all-time high.

Clues as to where Republicans are likely to suggest cuts came in a bill the House passed last month -- one the Senate has not yet considered -- to slash nearly $61 billion from the federal budget for the rest of the year, including money for programs favored by Democrats, such as Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the recently passed health care reform law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called those cuts "terribly mischievous and wrong-headed, wrong-sighted."

But Senate Republicans insisted the cuts are necessary, and the process of slashing the federal budget is just getting started.

"You could argue that $4 billion in the context of an over-$3 trillion budget is not a lot of money," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said. "It is at least the first time since I've been here that I can recall cutting anything of any consequence. And I hope that's the beginning of a trend."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

House Passes Stopgap Bill to Avoid Government Shutdown, 335 to 91

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-01T17:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Budget, The Capitolist, Congress, Deficit

With funding for the federal government scheduled to expire Friday at midnight, the House of Representatives voted 335 to 91 Tuesday to keep the government operating through March 18. More than 100 Democrats joined 231 Republicans to pass the measure, while six Republicans joined 85 Democrats in voting no.

The Republican-sponsored measure, known as a continuing resolution (CR), would avoid a government shutdown for two more weeks while House and Senate negotiators try to hammer out a longer-term budget for the rest of the year. It would also retroactively cut $4 billion from 2010 federal spending levels over the next two weeks. The measure now goes to the Senate for a vote.

Bernanke: 'Several Years' Before Unemployment Returns to Normal

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-01T12:37:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday that although the American economy is showing improvement, the unemployment rate will probably remain high for years to come.

"If the rate of economic growth remains moderate, as projected, it could be several years before the unemployment rate has returned to a more normal level," Bernanke told the committee.

The Fed chairman called the current rate of job growth "relatively weak" and noted that the American economy has only replaced only about 1 million of the nearly 9 million jobs that were lost in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. That's "barely sufficient," Bernanke said, to keep pace with the hundreds of thousands of new graduates coming out of college and technical schools and other new entrants into the workforce.

Ben Bernanke: Reports Overstate Damage From GOP Spending Cuts

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-01T12:02:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke waded into a heated Washington debate Tuesday when he predicted that federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans would not damage economic growth to the extent that two recent reports have predicted.

House Republicans voted in February to slash $61 billion from the 2011 federal budget. Since then, Democratic leaders in both chambers have circulated two reports -- one from Goldman Sachs and one from Moody's -- that say such spending reductions would significantly damage the U.S. economy.

The Moody's report, from economist Mark Zandi, predicted that the GOP budget proposal would cause the economy to lose as many as 700,000 jobs, while Goldman Sachs predicted the cuts would slow GDP growth by as much as 2 percent in the second and third quarters of 2011.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement last week that the House cuts are "a recipe for a double-dip recession" and said the Goldman Sachs report in particular put "a dagger through the heart of their 'cut-and-grow' fantasy."

House to Vote Tuesday on Stopgap Budget to Avoid Government Shutdown

Patricia Murphy — 2011-03-01T07:05:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

With funding for the federal government scheduled to expire Friday at midnight, the House of Representatives will vote Tuesday on a short-term spending bill to keep the government operating through March 18.

The Republican-sponsored measure would keep the government open while House and Senate negotiators try to hammer out a longer-term budget for the rest of the year. It would also retroactively cut $4 billion from 2010 levels over the next two weeks.

"We can keep the government open and cut spending," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday. "I think there's a false choice that you can't do both."

The House vote comes a week after the chamber voted to slash $61 billion from the federal budget for the rest of the year, including zeroing out programs favored by Democrats, like Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the recently passed health care reform bill.

But with the Democratically controlled Senate unlikely to act on the House-passed bill, Republican leaders redrafted the plan to pull the funding from sources that President Obama has already proposed to cut, like earmarks and highway funding, but also keep the lower spending levels that conservatives House freshmen are insisting on.

"We don't see why there's any reason in the world the Senate doesn't accept that," Cantor said.

Although House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi criticized the spending cuts in the new House proposal as "not a good place to start," Senate Democrats, and even the White House, have sent signals that the revamped measure could pass this week to keep the government operating, at least for now.

"We're pleased that there seems to be some progress, and we think we're moving in the right direction," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday. "But this is still a process that's being worked up on the Hill."

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid has moved to bring a short-term spending bill up for a vote before Friday, but Reid has not yet offered details on what the Senate would take up, nor has he committed to voting on the same cuts the House is proposing.

Jon Summers, Reid's spokesman, told Politics Daily only that "we remain focused on preventing a government shutdown, while working on the long-term solutions we need to fund the government and responsibly cut spending."

In order to do that, the House and Senate will eventually have to agree this week on spending and cuts to federal programs, a level of compromise that has eluded the two chambers so far this year. Democrats and Republicans will also have to agree on a longer-term funding plan by March 18 or again face the prospect of a government shutdown.

That's a scenario that most Americans say they want to avoid. A poll conducted by Gallup last week showed that 60 percent of those polled-- including 61 percent of independents-- said they want their legislators to compromise on a budget rather than force a government shutdown.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How Congress Changed Your Life in 2010

Patricia Murphy — 2010-12-30T21:33:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Budget, The Capitolist, Congress

As members of the 111th Congress look back on 2010, they will see anything but a do-nothing session. From banning drop-side cribs, to freezing their own salaries for the second year in a row, to overhauling the food inspection system, to telling airlines not to charge fees for carry-on luggage, the Democratically controlled House and Senate passed bills at a feverish pace in the past year.

But several developments stand out for the breadth of their impact. They may not all be popular, as evidenced by the November "shellacking" that Democrats took in the midterm elections, but the following congressional actions in 2010 -- and in one case inaction -- will affect hundreds millions of Americans in the next year and beyond.

1. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts. The compromise brokered between President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in December will impact every American with a job and most Americans without one.

The new law will continue the expiring Bush tax rates for all income levels for the next two years; continue current tax rates on capital gains and dividends; set the estate tax at 35 percent for estates valued at more than $5 million, and continue dozens of tax breaks and credits for people from the bottom of the income spectrum to the top.

The most immediate difference will come in your first paycheck next year. Starting Jan. 1, the 6.2 percent payroll tax will drop to 4.2 percent for the next year, putting hundreds of dollars back in most workers' pockets. And for people without a job, the new law extends unemployment benefits until 2012, if they've been out of work for less than 99 weeks.

2. Reforming the Health Insurance System. No single piece of legislation was more controversial in 2010 than the Democratically sponsored overhaul of the health insurance industry.

Although the majority of Americans will continue to have insurance through their employers in the future, and most will still be covered by private insurers, the new law gives the federal government a much larger role in determining what kind of health care Americans get and how much insurance will cost. It also mandates that all Americans carry health insurance by 2014, a requirement that is being challenged in federal court.

Already this year, the law has allowed young adults to remain on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old; given tax credits to small businesses to cover employees' insurance, and will soon end insurance companies' ability to cut off coverage for customers who reach lifetime coverage caps.

Within the next three years, individuals will be able to shop for insurance through new health care exchanges, and will get government subsidies if they need help paying for it. About 15 million low-income Americans will be added to Medicaid, a development that governors have vocally opposed because of the unfunded mandates associated with it.

To pay for the multibillion dollar cost of the reforms, the bill expanded the Medicare payroll tax to investment income; will impose a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies by 2018; will add fees on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and will collect penalties from individuals and large business that do not buy the coverage required by the new law.

3. Overhauling Federal Student Loans. Provisions tacked onto the health care reform bill eliminated the role of private lenders in originating federal student loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that will save the federal government, which paid lenders to oversee the program, between $6 billion and $7 billion per year.

The people who will notice the biggest difference will be financial aid officers, who used to decide which private lenders they would use to originate federal loans for their students. Those loans will now all be originated by the U.S. Department of Education and will have the same federal terms and conditions that have been in effect for years.

But the changes will eventually impact every student who applies for and receives federal loans to attend college or graduate school. Although students will still seek loans through the financial aid office at their college or university, the loans cannot be resold to other loan servicers and will not be affected by private bank failures, which could disrupt payments.

Because of a spike in demand for Pell grants, that program was on course to run out of money in 2010. The Pell grant program will now remain solvent until at least 2017, with the maximum Pell grant award rising from $5,550 this year to $5,975 five years from now.

4. Failing to pass the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. In the last days of the 111th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spiked an omnibus spending bill that was made up of all 12 annual spending bills that Congress usually passes individually.

In the short term, that means the federal government will continue operating at current spending levels until March 5. But in the longer-term, it guarantees the first of many showdowns over spending between the Republican-led House and the Democratic Senate. With government spending at the top of most incoming Republicans' target lists, compromise between the two chambers could be almost impossible.

The impasse also puts the future of earmarking in doubt. Although Republicans had sponsored thousands of the 6,600 earmarks in the bill, they backed away from the legislation when tea party activists made it clear they would challenge GOP lawmakers in the future who voted for pork projects now.

5. Overseeing a $1.29 Trillion Increase in the Deficit. New federal programs cost money, and the 111th Congress oversaw the second-highest deficit in history and an increase in the national debt to $14 trillion.

David Walker, the onetime Comptroller General of the United States, says runaway spending in Washington will have a crippling effect on Americans one and two generations from now. "We're mortgaging the future of the country, and their children and grandchildren," Walker told Politics Daily. "At the same time, because of the growth of spending, we're reducing the role of investments in our future because the budget on the discretionary side is getting squeezed at a time when America is facing growing competition in a global economy."

If Congress does not change its spending habits now, Walker said, everyone's tax bills will be higher in the future. "If we don't end up reforming our ways, federal taxes will have to double within the next 20 to 30 years, just to stop the bleeding."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Senate Passes Health Care Program for 9-11 First Responders

Patricia Murphy — 2010-12-22T16:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Republicans, Health Care, Terror, The Capitolist, Congress

On the frenzied final day of session for the 111th Congress, the Senate unanimously passed a bill Wednesday authorizing a new federally sponsored health benefits program for first responders who participated in rescue and recovery efforts following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Later in the day, the House quickly passed the measure on a vote of 206 to 60 and sent it to President Obama for his signature.

In the nine years since the attacks, hundreds of rescue workers who responded to Ground Zero have become ill or even died from serious respiratory problems. Health professionals have testified to Congress that the illnesses are related to the toxic dust that hovered over the site where the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed in lower Manhattan.

A similar bill has passed in the House in September, but it was blocked in the Senate for months by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and others who argued that the program would worsen the federal deficit and could be vulnerable to fraud and abuse.

"Every member of this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, want to do what's right for the first responders who may have been injured after 9-11," DeMint said Wednesday. "But we owe it to the American people to be accountable to how we spend money. Certainly it's worth a few weeks of committee hearings and understanding exactly how to spend taxpayer money effectively."

But Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the bill's sponsors along Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), said the bill had not been rushed, as Republicans like DeMint said, and added that the bill would require no taxpayer money.

"Let me assure you, we have been working on this bill for nine years," she said. "There have been 22 hearings on this bill, 21 in the House and one in the Senate . . . And unlike so many pieces of legislation in Washington, this bill is fully paid for."

Senate Ratifies START Treaty, 71 to 26; a Win for Obama, a Loss for Jon Kyl

Patricia Murphy — 2010-12-22T15:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Foreign Policy, Obama Administration, National Security, The Capitolist, International, Congress, Arms Control, Nuclear Proliferation

The Senate voted 71 to 26 Wednesday to ratify the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, a nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia signed by President Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev in April. Thirteen Republicans joined 58 Democrats to help the measure easily pass the two-thirds majority needed for ratification.

The vote was a blow to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, who had tried mightily to persuade his colleagues to defeat the treaty, as well as a victory for President Obama, who named the START Treaty as his top foreign policy priority for the lame-duck session of Congress and spent hours working through Republicans' objections to win their support for the pact.

The Republicans voting yes were Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Robert Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Judd Gregg (N.H.) Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska.), Olympia Snowe (Maine.), and George Voinovich (Ohio).

Vice President Joe Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired the Senate for the vote in his role as the president of the chamber, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) surprised his colleagues by showing up for the vote two days after surgery for prostate cancer.

The treaty, known as "New START," requires Russia and the United States to reduce their nuclear warheads by half, cut the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and missile launchers, and submit to on-site inspections by the other country's weapons experts. A controversial preamble also states that current missile defense systems would not undermine the treaty, a clause that Republicans contend was written by the Russians to lay the groundwork to object to future American missile defense systems.

The Wednesday vote came after Democrats accepted two amendments -- one from Kyl and one from Sen. John McCain -- stating the Obama administration's commitment to modernizing nuclear weapons facilities and to pursuing a robust missile defense program in the future.

Despite the accommodations he won from the White House, Kyl has led the charge against the treaty since it was signed by the president in April, and he went to the Senate floor just before the vote to give his final argument against it.

"There isn't time to lay out all of the problems that I think that those of us who oppose the treaty still believe are present in the treaty," Kyl said. "The precedent here that we're establishing is that the Senate really is a rubber stamp. Whatever the president negotiates with the Russians or somebody else, we dare not change because it will have to be renegotiated to some great detriment to humanity."

As Kyl complained that the treaty had been jammed through the Senate and that it would put the United States at a strategic disadvantage, several of his GOP colleagues defended both the process in the Senate and the agreement itself.

"This has been a seven-month process, not a nine-day process," said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), a member of the Senate foreign Relations Committee that approved the treaty in September. "When it's ratified today it will be a step forward for my children and my grandchildren."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) praised the White House's role in the process. "The administration officials have bent over backwards to try to solve every problem that's come up," Corker said. "The administration has not only solved problems for people who might vote for the treaty, they've tried to solve problems for people they know are not going to vote for the treaty."

The issue has become increasingly contentious, as Democrats have pushed Republicans to approve the treaty without significant changes, while many Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have accused the Obama administration of rushing the treaty toward passage without giving the Senate enough time to fully consider it.

During the final debate Wednesday, several Republicans accused the president personally of weakening the United States' role in the world with New START.

"This treaty is just another example, another symptom, of a foreign policy that sends a message of timidity, even ambivalence, not only about our own security, but about America's leadership role in a very dangerous world," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) agreed. "I think it makes us less secure, not more secure as a nation," Vitter said. "It's clear to me that President Obama went into negotiations willing to give up almost anything to get a treaty and that basic posture produced what it always will -- a bad deal of us."

Although Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) had intended to speak about the treaty, he stopped to chastise Vitter and Cornyn for their remarks about President Obama.

Nelson said he was raised to believe that when the commander in chief travels abroad, "there is no partisanship when that occurs, and it is troubling to this senator to hear comments about our president," Nelson said. "I would think we ought to rise above that partisanship when issues of national security are at stake."

Nelson went on to deliver his speech, saying the agreement will strengthen national security.

As senators gathered for the final vote, Sen. John Kerry, the treaty's champion in the Senate and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thanked the Republicans who joined the Democrats in supporting the pact that could not have ratified without bipartisan backing, and gave his closing argument for it.

"In the final analysis, regardless of where you stand on the START treaty, this is one of those rare times in the United States Senate . . . when we have it in our power to safeguard or to endanger human life on this planet," Kerry said.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Congress Freezes Federal Salaries in Stopgap Spending Bill

Patricia Murphy — 2010-12-22T08:36:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

The House passed a continuing resolution Tuesday by a vote of 193 to 165 to fund the federal government at current spending levels until March 4. The measure made an exception for the Veterans Administration and Pell Grants, which both received funding increases, and included language requested by the White House to freeze salaries for non-military federal workers for the next two years.

The stopgap spending measure was the last act in a drama over federal funding that has tied Congress in knots in 2010. Although the House passed several of the 12 annual appropriations bills this year, the Senate failed to pass any, as lawmakers battled over the appropriate levels of spending in a recession and the role of earmarking in the budget process.

Seeing the impasse in the Senate earlier this month, the House passed a long-term continuing resolution to fund the government through September of 2011, effectively cutting Republicans out of any decisions about funding levels until the 2012 fiscal year.

But a showdown over earmarks last week forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to kill a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations bill in the Senate when Republicans, who had earlier committed to Reid that they would vote for the measure, quietly withdrew their support. Left with no consensus on how to fund the government for the next year, Democrats decided that the short-term funding bill was the only option left.

After the House passed the short-term C.R. on Tuesday, Reid blamed the Republicans for the unprecedented failure to pass spending legislation for the fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1.

"I am glad we avoided a potential government shutdown and were able to come to a short-term agreement on a continuing resolution," Reid said. "But it is a shame that Republicans have shirked their duty to responsibly fund the government, and kicked this can down the road."

The three-month time frame of the bill now guarantees a showdown early next year between the Obama administration and Republicans, who will hold the majority in the House and will write the first draft of all spending bills. Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner has pushed for a freeze in federal spending at 2008 levels and has promised to introduce a bill every week to cut spending in some sector of the federal government.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

START Treaty Up for Cliffhanger Vote in Senate

Patricia Murphy — 2010-12-20T23:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Republicans, Obama Administration, National Security, The Capitolist, International, Conservatives, Arms Control, Nuclear Proliferation

With the clock running out on the lame-duck session of Congress, the Senate expects to begin voting Tuesday on ratification of the Strategic Arms Nuclear Reduction Treaty, the arms-reduction pact signed in Prague by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April.

Proponents of the bill will need 60 votes to end debate on the measure on Tuesday, followed by a two-thirds majority, likely 67 votes, to ratify the treaty later in the week.

The issue has become an increasingly contentious one, as Democrats have pushed Republicans to approve the treaty without significant changes, while many Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have accused the Obama administration of jamming the treaty toward passage without giving the Senate enough time to fully consider it.

"A decision of this magnitude should not be decided under the pressure of a deadline," McConnell said. "If it is the position of the majority that the treaty cannot be amended . . . why have any debate at all?"

McConnell joined Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, in announcing his opposition to the treaty over the weekend.

Kyl had been in negotiations with the Obama administration throughout the summer over changes he wanted in the amendable portions of the agreement. Although the White House, at Kyl's request, added $4 billion to modernize America's nuclear stockpile, bringing the total to $85 billion -- the senator remained steadfastly opposed to what he called "a flawed treaty" that was poorly negotiated.

"We got snookered on missile defense. We got snookered on tactical nuclear weapons. We got snookered on verification," Kyl said. "All of these are issues we would like to try to deal with in the United States Senate, but Sen. [John] Kerry has said we're not going to amend the treaty. So what are we doing here?"

The treaty itself, known as "New START," is a follow up to the United States' previous arms-reduction agreements with Russia, START I, which expired in 2009, and START II, which will expire in 2012. New START required eight rounds of bilateral negotiations between the two countries before the presidents signed it in April then sent it to each country's Senate for ratification in May.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved New START by a vote of 14 to 4 in September, with three Republicans supporting it.

The 10-year pact would require Russia and the United States to agree to reduce their nuclear warheads by half, to reduce the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and missile launchers, and to submit to on-site inspections by the other country's weapons experts. A controversial preamble also states that current missile defense systems would not undermine the treaty, a clause that Republicans contend was written by the Russians to lay the groundwork to object to future American missile defense systems.

After hearing Republican objections to the treaty for weeks, Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, lashed out at GOP leaders Monday for what he saw as false arguments.

"I would say my friend the minority leader, just because you say something doesn't make it true," Kerry said to McConnell.

Kerry said consideration of the treaty was delayed 13 times at the request of Republicans to study it further. When Kyl asked for financing for modernization of American weapons, Kerry said Democrats provided the extra money, and when Kyl wanted more information, Democrats sent a staffer to Arizona to brief him.

"Now fully accommodated, with their requests entirely met, they come back and say it's being rushed," Kerry said.
"Is there no shame? Ever?"

As Democratic and Republican leaders sparred Monday, Russia's foreign minister warned that Russia would not honor any major changes to the treaty they had negotiated with President Obama.

"I can only underscore that the strategic nuclear arms treaty, worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interests of Russia and the United States," Sergey V. Lavrov told the Interfax news agency, according to The New York Times. "It cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations."

With the votes nearing in the Senate, several key Republicans have broken with their leadership to say they are likely to support it, including Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), and Richard Lugar of Indiana, the leading senator on nuclear arms reduction.

"I would say the chances of Russia reducing its tactical nuclear weapons is worse without this treaty, not better," Lugar said.

Also on Monday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, wrote a letter to Kerry with a similar message.

"This treaty has the full support of your uniformed military, and we all support ratification," Mullen wrote. "I continue to believe that ratification of the New Start treaty is vital to U.S. national security," Mullen concluded.

Despite the growing Republican support, Kerry would not guarantee success in ratification, although he said he felt confident the Senate would approve the measure.

"I'll give you the vote count when it's over," he said.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Food-Safety Bill Clears Senate in Wake of 2010's Massive Recalls

Patricia Murphy — 2010-12-20T14:30:00+00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

After a year of dozens of dangerous-food incidents, including a single outbreak of salmonella that led to the recall of more than half a billion eggs, the Senate passed a food-safety bill Sunday night by a unanimous voice vote.

The bill will overhaul food-safety standards in the United States for the first time since 1938. In addition to adding 2,000 new food-safety inspectors, it will give the Food and Drug Administration the power for the first time to force a mandatory recall of tainted foods and products, a decision which had been left up to food companies up to now.

The measure will also mandate that 150,000-plus food processors in the country have a disease prevention plan, which federal inspectors can review, and will require that food shipped into the United States meet American safety standards. Finally, it allows American inspectors to travel overseas to inspect foreign-food processing plants.

Sen. Richard Durbin has been working to pass a food-safety bill since his first years in Congress nearly 20 years ago. When the bill came up for debate in the Senate in September, he called food safety "a life or death issue."

"This is an issue which has haunted me since my days in the House of Representatives," Durbin said, as he described a constituent whose 6-year-old son had died after eating contaminated hamburger sold in an Illinois supermarket. "Hardly a week goes by that there isn't some new food-safety tragedy. Eggs, tomatoes, spinach, week after week, month after month. The question is, will we do something about it?"

Although the House had passed a similar food-safety bill in 2009, the Senate did not move on the legislation until September, in the wake of the salmonella outbreak that led to the recall of hundreds of thousands of eggs from a farm in Iowa that had failed safety inspections at the state level for years.

The Senate passed a companion bill by a vote of 73 to 25 in the fall, but a technical error in the legislation meant that senators had to go back to the drawing board on the bill in the lame-duck session. The House now must pass the Senate bill this week in order to be signed into law before the next Congress starts over on the issue.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, illnesses from that salmonella outbreak were just a tiny portion of the 76 million cases of food-borne sickness in the United States every year, which lead to about 325,000 hospitalizations.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a physician, had been leading a months-long filibuster of the bill, which he said did nothing to solve the huge overlap of authority between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which also oversees food safety. Coburn also strenuously objected to the legislation's $1.4-billion price tag.

"If we continue the habit of ignoring the idea that there is a limit to how much we can spend, we will never solve the critical problems facing us, whether we have clean food or not," he said during the September debate on the bill.

But by Sunday night, Coburn had dropped his filibuster and the Senate passed the bill by a unanimous consent. After it passed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the legislation "a common-sense issue with broad bipartisan support."

On the day before the bill passed, Durbin was asked how he felt seeing his decades-long fight for the bill still unfinished.

"If you're not patient, don't run for the Senate," he said.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Politics Daily

Emotions Run High at Rep. Peter King's Hearings on Radical Muslims in the U.S.

Related Stories

Keith Ellison, Muslim Congressman, Breaks Into Tears at King's Hearing

Rep. Peter King's Hearing on American Muslims: How Radical? How Dangerous?

Related Stories

Rival Budget Bills Fail in Senate, Shutdown Countdown Begins

Related Stories

Budget Battle Puts Moderate Senators in the Hot Seat

GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy: Another Stopgap Budget Likely

In Government Shutdown, President and Congress Would Still Get Paid

No Progress on Budget After Biden Huddles With Boehner, Other Hill Leaders

Nancy Pelosi Raising Cash for Wisconsin Labor Fight

Senate Votes, 91-9, to Avoid Government Shutdown -- for Now

House Passes Stopgap Bill to Avoid Government Shutdown, 335 to 91

Related Stories

Bernanke: 'Several Years' Before Unemployment Returns to Normal

Related Stories

Ben Bernanke: Reports Overstate Damage From GOP Spending Cuts

Related Stories

House to Vote Tuesday on Stopgap Budget to Avoid Government Shutdown

How Congress Changed Your Life in 2010

Senate Passes Health Care Program for 9-11 First Responders

Related Stories

Senate Ratifies START Treaty, 71 to 26; a Win for Obama, a Loss for Jon Kyl

Congress Freezes Federal Salaries in Stopgap Spending Bill

START Treaty Up for Cliffhanger Vote in Senate

Food-Safety Bill Clears Senate in Wake of 2010's Massive Recalls