Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The House ducked out of town today so that Speaker Pelosi could jet off to Copenhagen. Let's get to the day in politics.
HEALTH CARE: We knew it was inevitable. We knew it was coming. But it doesn't make it any less annoying. Today the Republicans brought out their parliamentary dilatory tactics to bring the health care debate to a halt. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had proposed an amendment that would replace the entire bill with a single-payer system. The amendment was obviously for show, but Sanders only intended for it to be a short chance for him to make a case for single-payer medicine. Republican Senator Tom Coburn, the master of obstruction, forced the clerk to read the entire 700 page amendment, as is his right as a single Senator. The clerk made it through about two hours and had only read 150 or so pages, so Sanders decided to withdraw his amendment (which cuts off the reading, in the theory of the parliamentarian at least). As a result, Sanders was prevented from offering his amendment. More importantly, the Republicans have indicated that they will do anything to delay this bill as long as possible. Unfortunately, they have a lot of opportunities to do so.
To accommodate the changes Majority Leader Reid has made to appease moderates, the Democrats have crafted a "manager's amendment" that will incorporate the revisions. This manager's amendment will probably be pretty long, and any Republican can request that it be read in full on the Senate floor. The Democrats will need 60 votes to close debate on this manager's amendment. And remember in 8th grade when you learned about how only the House can originate bills raising revenue? As a result of this constitutional provision, the Senate has to make the health care bill a substitute amendment to an unrelated House-passed measure. The substitute amendment will need 60 votes, and will be subject to the long and arduous cloture process. It took can be read in full at the request of any Senator, and it is 2,000 pages. Once the substitute amendment is approved, the underlying bill will be subject to the 60 vote threshold and the 60 hour cloture process. In other words, Republicans have the power to drag this thing out a pretty long time, even if the Democrats cobble together 60 votes.
The strategy is clear: the longer and uglier this debate gets, the less popular health care becomes. The Republicans know that, and they are using it to their advantage. The Democrats need to play hardball and force the Republicans to follow through on these obstruction threats, even if it means that the Senate is in session on Christmas day.
The Senate took one vote today, to kill a Hutchison (TX) amendment that would delay the taxes in the bill from kicking in until the full benefits have been given out. This amendment would keep the bill from being deficit neutral, so Democrats lined up in opposition. The amendment was killed 56-41, with all Republicans voting no (supporting the amendment). Democrats Bayh (IN) and Nelson (NE) voted with the GOP, as they have frequently during the health care debate.
Tomorrow, the Senate takes a break from health care to consider the Defense Appropriations bill, which we'll talk about below.
THE HOUSE: So what DIDN'T the House do today? The 2009 session of the House of Representatives has officially ended, and the House was able to take care of some important year-end business in time for members to jet out of town. The House really a productive year, and it's important that we recognize that the source of stagnation has been the United States Senate and its cadre of centrist Democrats During the Christmas break, I will write an entry about what we could have accomplished if we had a unicameral legislature. But for now, I will go through what the House did today.
The House passed three key bills today. The first was the Defense Appropriations bill. Democrats used this must-pass funding bill as a vehicle for other must-pass pieces of legislation that would die a slow Senate death in regular order. Among the provisions of the bill are extensions of various tax credits and safety net programs, as well as a temporary extension of certain provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act. Democrats wanted to tack on even more to this bill, like an increase in the debt ceiling and a jobs measure, but it was clear that such measures couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate, even if they were attached to a troop-funding bill.
The bill passed by a vote of 395-34, with 23 Democrats and 11 Republicans voting no. The Democrats' opposition was due to the fact that some of these funds will be used for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure is currently on the Senate floor, where it is expected to pass in the next couple of days, depending on whether the GOP employs more delay tactics.
Next on the agenda was the toughest vote for wary Democrats. The United States has reached its so-called debt ceiling, meaning that if Congress did not authorize us to go into more debt, we would default on our loans. This debt limit has to be raised pretty frequently, and it is a great political opportunity for the party out of power to rag on the majority about "running up the debt." Republicans, of course, were thrilled to have that opportunity. Democrats wanted to increase the debt limit by $1.8 trillion, which would have sufficed through next year. But when it was clear that such an increase wouldn't pass the Senate, the leadership settled on a raise of $ 200 billion that will last until February (at which points members will be forced to take yet another difficult vote on raising the debt ceiling again!). The bill passed by a margin of 218-214, with all Republicans and 39 Democrats voting no. Some Democratic members have clearly read polls that show Americans increasingly worried about the deficit and the national debt, so I can understand them not wanting to raise the debt ceiling. I personally think, as I've said before, that when people say they're worried about the deficit, they're more expressing a general discontent with the economy and the jobs picture.
If the next vote was any indication of whether centrist and vulnerable Democrats understand the economic angst of the American public, then these members are utterly clueless. The Democratic leadership brought a bill to the floor today that would have transferred about $159 billion in leftover TARP money for a robust jobs bill. The bill contained provisions that extended safety-net programs like unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance. It gave money to state and local governments to help offset staggering state budget deficits that are causing teachers, firefighters and policemen to be laid off. It also invested over $70 billion in infrastructure projects that will create good jobs in construction and manufacturing. In other words, this was a bill to transfer money from Wall Street to Main Street. The bill passed by a narrow margin of 217-212.
This bill would have a measurable effect on millions of Americans (though it should have been bigger). Thus, I'm extremely disturbed that 38 Democrats joined every single Republican in opposing this bill. Do these Democrats take literally polls that say that people would rather reduce the deficit than create jobs? I'm one to believe that people don't really know what the deficit is, what causes it, and what the consequences are. The deficit is such a nebulous concept. People hear the word "deficit" and it sort of conjures up the feeling that the economy is bad, and that we're spending more money than we're taking in, which is a bad thing. I guarantee you that if we increased the deficit and it brought down unemployment by 5 percentage points, people would stop caring about the deficit. I wish these 38 Democrats knew better than to take polls literally, and voted for reasons other than short-term political expediency. The list of guilty Democrats is as follows (commence booing): Adler (NJ), Arcuri (NY), Bean (IL), Boren (OK), Boyd (FL), Bright (AL), Childers (MS), Connolly (VA), Donnelly (IN), Driehaus (OH), Edwards (TX), Ellsworth (IN), Foster (IL), Griffith (AL), Herseth Sandlin (SD), Hill (IN), Himes (CT), Hodes (NH), Kind (WI), Kirkpatrick (AZ), Kosmas (FL), Kratovil (MD), Markey (CO), Matheson (UT), Melancon (LA), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Murphy (PA), Nye (VA), Peters (MI), Peterson (MN), Pomeroy (ND), Quigley (IL), Schrader (OR), Smith (WA), Space (OH), Taylor (MS) and Teague (NM).
And just because we want to leave on a postive note, here are vulnerable/swing-state Democrats who took a tough yes vote: Boccieri (OH), Carney (PA), Giffords (AZ), Grayson (FL), Owens (NY), Perriello (VA) and Shuler (NC).
That's it for tonight. No more updates on the House until the New Year! We'll keep you posted on the Senate health care battle and we'll fill you in on Obama's happenings tomorrow night.
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Daily Strike-6/17/09-Grinding and Sputtering
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. According to a WSJ/NBC News poll out tonight, 61% of Americans thinks that the President isn't trying to do too much, and that he should continue to try and solve the country's problems. More work for us!
FINANCIAL REGULATION: The President today announced a new program of regulations on financial markets. The regulations were billed as "new rules for the road" to curb the "culture of irresponsibility" we've seen in the last several years. The President is saying that this is the biggest step in regulatory reform since the Great Depression. The plan has 5 essential components (per the Washington Post):
1. Increases the power of of the Federal Reserve, creating stronger and more consistent oversight of the largest financial firms.
2. Asks Congress to authorize the government for the first time to dismantle large firms that fall into trouble, avoiding a chaotic collapse that could disrupt the economy.
3. Extends federal oversight and imposes new rules in trading complex derivatives and securities built from mortgage loans.
4. Creates a new agency to protect consumer mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products.
5. Increases the administration's coordination with other nations to prevent businesses from migrating to less regulated venues.
These all sound good. I haven't seen the opinions of the people I would really trust to see if it goes far enough, like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. The chairmen of the House and Senate Financial Services Committees, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, expressed tepid approval, saying that some of the proposals won't make it through Congress. That is starting to sound like a broken record. I'm worried that once the proposal goes to Congress, it will be torpedoed by people who get billions of dollars from the financial industry. For what it's worth, Frank and Dodd pledged to act by the end of the year. Add it to the pile.
WSJ/NBC POLL: The aforementioned poll out tonight has some revealing numbers. The President remains popular, enjoying a 56% approval rating. There are some other troubling numbers in the poll, however. Most the country, by a pretty significant majority, would rather the government deal with the deficit even if it slows economic recovery. This is bad news, because it goes against practically every policy proposal the President has presented. I think that Obama did himself a disservice by making token speeches about lowering the deficit, and making the government "live within it's means." Economic recovery requires high levels of government spending, and the President should explain that to the American people. He doesn't have to conform to this conventional mainstream media wisdom that the deficit is the worst thing in the world. The main concern about deficits, that they will lead to high inflation, seems unlikely according to recent economic data. In order to enact progressive policies, we have to change perceptions about the federal deficit.
The good news? The public likes Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and disapproves of the Republican party at historic levels.
HEALTH CARE: I'm becoming increasingly discouraged about what's happening with health reform in Congress. Today, the Senate HELP committee began marking-up their version of the health care bill. The bill they released last week turns out to have been a piece of work. For one, it was incomplete. It didn't include language on the two most important parts of reform, the public insurance option or how to pay for it. Second, it was given a $1 trillion price tag by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO said that the bill would only cover 1/3rd of the nation's uninsured. If you're going to release a bill, either release the whole thing, or release something that makes it seem cheaper.
The hearing today was more like a circus than a mark-up. Senators didn't actually do anything today. They each made long opening statements outlining their perspectives on the legislation. The hearings are expected to continue for the next two weeks, as Senators consider a plethora of amendments, most of them proposed only to make a political statement. The HELP committee is supposed to be the committee that makes the bill more liberal. It's members are generally further to the left than the Senate Finance Committee. So their diligent work is that much more important.
The other Senate committee with jurisdiction, the Senate Finance Committee, is also not getting their act together either. Their proposed bill, which has yet to be released to the public, was given a cost of a whopping $1.6 trillion by the CBO. That number will scare away a lot of members of Congress. The chairman of the committee, Max Baucus, is delaying his committee's markup of the bill until they can cut about $600 billion in costs. This will probably take a few weeks.
It's bad enough that Democratic Senators regularly undermine the President's plan by insisting that it's too ambitious, or that it can't pass Congress. Now, they can't even muster up enough competence to write a complete bill and hold a responsible hearing? Every misstep adds to the perception that a) Democrats are unsure of their own proposals, and b) Democrats don't know what they're doing and should not be in the business of drafting a major bill like this. This is just pathetic. They need to get their acts together immediately. All of the stars have to align perfectly in order to get comprehensive reform passed this year. If Senate Democrats continue to drop the ball, we'll be in a lot of trouble.
THE HOUSE: I wish I could tell you that our other legislative body functions more effectively, but watching the House today, I couldn't possibly make that case. The House is considering the first of it's annual appropriations, which would fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice and Science. The bill adds about $12 billion in funding over last year's request, mostly for increased law enforcement provisions and a few new programs. Appropriations bills, unlike most other bills, are usually considered under open rules, meaning that any member can offer amendments as long as they are germane to the matter at hand. Democrats simply required Republicans to submit their amendments in writing before the bill came to the floor. Of course, Republicans, being the children that they are, filed like 175 amendments, which would have slowed the bill (and other legislative action) down. Democrats reacted to this by passing a new rule, limiting consideration to 44 pre-determined amendments. Now, Republicans are "getting back" at the Democrats by forcing record votes on all of these amendments, even ones that have unanimous support. So basically, they're upset about a slight modification in House rules, so they are going to make the House work on the bill for two days longer than it otherwise would have. Do they realize that no one cares about House rules? People want their Congress to get things done! House Republicans are such brats.
Anyways, the House has so far considered 19 of the amendments, and has voted on 3 of them. That means they'll probably take 10 or so more votes tonight, and about 30 tomorrow, wasting time on what otherwise is a pretty non-controversial bill. It's gonna be a long couple of nights. Meanwhile, people are still losing their jobs and their health care. I just can't believe how petty these people are.
THE SENATE: Not to be outdone, Senate Republicans are playing their own game of delay and obstruct. A few Senate Republicans filibustered a motion to proceed to a bill enhancing foreign travel into the United States, because it might contain anti-hate crimes amendment (as we talked about yesterday.) Senators voted 90-3 to cut off debate on this motion, but the filibustering Senators can still hold up the bill for another 30 hours under Senate rules, which is exactly what they did. The 30 hours expired this evening, and the Senate has begun general debate on the billl. Mind you, this is just a motion to PROCEED. We're not even talking about the bill itself.
Overall, this day gives me little trust that our country's political institutions (especially Congress) are capable of putting aside their parochial interests and political games to get things done. Hopefully, they'll get their act together soon.
And hopefully I'll be in a more positive mood tomorrow, too.
FINANCIAL REGULATION: The President today announced a new program of regulations on financial markets. The regulations were billed as "new rules for the road" to curb the "culture of irresponsibility" we've seen in the last several years. The President is saying that this is the biggest step in regulatory reform since the Great Depression. The plan has 5 essential components (per the Washington Post):
1. Increases the power of of the Federal Reserve, creating stronger and more consistent oversight of the largest financial firms.
2. Asks Congress to authorize the government for the first time to dismantle large firms that fall into trouble, avoiding a chaotic collapse that could disrupt the economy.
3. Extends federal oversight and imposes new rules in trading complex derivatives and securities built from mortgage loans.
4. Creates a new agency to protect consumer mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products.
5. Increases the administration's coordination with other nations to prevent businesses from migrating to less regulated venues.
These all sound good. I haven't seen the opinions of the people I would really trust to see if it goes far enough, like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. The chairmen of the House and Senate Financial Services Committees, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, expressed tepid approval, saying that some of the proposals won't make it through Congress. That is starting to sound like a broken record. I'm worried that once the proposal goes to Congress, it will be torpedoed by people who get billions of dollars from the financial industry. For what it's worth, Frank and Dodd pledged to act by the end of the year. Add it to the pile.
WSJ/NBC POLL: The aforementioned poll out tonight has some revealing numbers. The President remains popular, enjoying a 56% approval rating. There are some other troubling numbers in the poll, however. Most the country, by a pretty significant majority, would rather the government deal with the deficit even if it slows economic recovery. This is bad news, because it goes against practically every policy proposal the President has presented. I think that Obama did himself a disservice by making token speeches about lowering the deficit, and making the government "live within it's means." Economic recovery requires high levels of government spending, and the President should explain that to the American people. He doesn't have to conform to this conventional mainstream media wisdom that the deficit is the worst thing in the world. The main concern about deficits, that they will lead to high inflation, seems unlikely according to recent economic data. In order to enact progressive policies, we have to change perceptions about the federal deficit.
The good news? The public likes Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and disapproves of the Republican party at historic levels.
HEALTH CARE: I'm becoming increasingly discouraged about what's happening with health reform in Congress. Today, the Senate HELP committee began marking-up their version of the health care bill. The bill they released last week turns out to have been a piece of work. For one, it was incomplete. It didn't include language on the two most important parts of reform, the public insurance option or how to pay for it. Second, it was given a $1 trillion price tag by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO said that the bill would only cover 1/3rd of the nation's uninsured. If you're going to release a bill, either release the whole thing, or release something that makes it seem cheaper.
The hearing today was more like a circus than a mark-up. Senators didn't actually do anything today. They each made long opening statements outlining their perspectives on the legislation. The hearings are expected to continue for the next two weeks, as Senators consider a plethora of amendments, most of them proposed only to make a political statement. The HELP committee is supposed to be the committee that makes the bill more liberal. It's members are generally further to the left than the Senate Finance Committee. So their diligent work is that much more important.
The other Senate committee with jurisdiction, the Senate Finance Committee, is also not getting their act together either. Their proposed bill, which has yet to be released to the public, was given a cost of a whopping $1.6 trillion by the CBO. That number will scare away a lot of members of Congress. The chairman of the committee, Max Baucus, is delaying his committee's markup of the bill until they can cut about $600 billion in costs. This will probably take a few weeks.
It's bad enough that Democratic Senators regularly undermine the President's plan by insisting that it's too ambitious, or that it can't pass Congress. Now, they can't even muster up enough competence to write a complete bill and hold a responsible hearing? Every misstep adds to the perception that a) Democrats are unsure of their own proposals, and b) Democrats don't know what they're doing and should not be in the business of drafting a major bill like this. This is just pathetic. They need to get their acts together immediately. All of the stars have to align perfectly in order to get comprehensive reform passed this year. If Senate Democrats continue to drop the ball, we'll be in a lot of trouble.
THE HOUSE: I wish I could tell you that our other legislative body functions more effectively, but watching the House today, I couldn't possibly make that case. The House is considering the first of it's annual appropriations, which would fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice and Science. The bill adds about $12 billion in funding over last year's request, mostly for increased law enforcement provisions and a few new programs. Appropriations bills, unlike most other bills, are usually considered under open rules, meaning that any member can offer amendments as long as they are germane to the matter at hand. Democrats simply required Republicans to submit their amendments in writing before the bill came to the floor. Of course, Republicans, being the children that they are, filed like 175 amendments, which would have slowed the bill (and other legislative action) down. Democrats reacted to this by passing a new rule, limiting consideration to 44 pre-determined amendments. Now, Republicans are "getting back" at the Democrats by forcing record votes on all of these amendments, even ones that have unanimous support. So basically, they're upset about a slight modification in House rules, so they are going to make the House work on the bill for two days longer than it otherwise would have. Do they realize that no one cares about House rules? People want their Congress to get things done! House Republicans are such brats.
Anyways, the House has so far considered 19 of the amendments, and has voted on 3 of them. That means they'll probably take 10 or so more votes tonight, and about 30 tomorrow, wasting time on what otherwise is a pretty non-controversial bill. It's gonna be a long couple of nights. Meanwhile, people are still losing their jobs and their health care. I just can't believe how petty these people are.
THE SENATE: Not to be outdone, Senate Republicans are playing their own game of delay and obstruct. A few Senate Republicans filibustered a motion to proceed to a bill enhancing foreign travel into the United States, because it might contain anti-hate crimes amendment (as we talked about yesterday.) Senators voted 90-3 to cut off debate on this motion, but the filibustering Senators can still hold up the bill for another 30 hours under Senate rules, which is exactly what they did. The 30 hours expired this evening, and the Senate has begun general debate on the billl. Mind you, this is just a motion to PROCEED. We're not even talking about the bill itself.
Overall, this day gives me little trust that our country's political institutions (especially Congress) are capable of putting aside their parochial interests and political games to get things done. Hopefully, they'll get their act together soon.
And hopefully I'll be in a more positive mood tomorrow, too.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Weekly Strike-5/18-5/24
Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we preview the week in politics. The action on Capital Hill is expected to heat up in advance of the Memorial Day recess. Let's get to it.
THE WHITE HOUSE: The President, fresh off reconciliation with Notre Dame Catholics over abortion, the President wades into another seemingly irreconcilable conflict today when he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has been Prime Minister (his second go-around) for only a few months, and this is his first sit-down with the President. I'm most interested in their one-on-one meeting from 10:30-11:30 this morning. Will Obama push hard for concessions from Netanyahu to help foster a renewed peace effort with the Palestinians? Netanyahu is a center-right politician who hasn't exactly shown affinity for U.S.-led peace efforts in the past. He, unlike other Israeli politicians, has never committed to a two state solution. My fantasy would be an LBJ-style stare down in which Obama intimidates Netanyahu into accepting a new road map for peace. I can dream.
The President has a quiet rest of the day, and week for that matter. The other known major event on the President's calendar is a speech on Thursday on the subject of Guantanamo Bay, torture, the memos, the photos etc. This speech, according to Politico.com is designed to "elevate the coverage/conversation." It looks like this speech is following the pattern of several past Obama speeches. After an acute scandal breaks out, Obama, after letting the American people digest it a little bit, gives a speech explaining the key issues in context, and talks to the American people like adults. This type of speech has done wonders for him in the past. In the wake of the Jeremiah Wright scandal last year, Obama gave one of his best speech on race relations. Last month, Obama gave a speech at Georgetown on the "five pillars" of the economy. If Obama did not give speeches like this, issues like torture would get down in the weeds of "who knew what, when." The President wants the American people to understand the broader context. I will be anxious to see what he says.
THE SENATE: Congress enters the last week in session before the Memorial Day recess, and both chambers have a lot of work to do. The Senate tomorrow will vote on cloture on the Credit Card Bill of Rights. If the motion gets the required 60 votes (which it almost certainly will), Senators will vote on a series of germane (relevant) amendments (a list agreed to by the two party leaders) prior to a vote on final passage. The Senate will then move on to consider the war funding bill, which passed the House last week. It seems like the Senate always waits until the last minute to debate important funding bills, and the House, under strict time constraints, is usually forced to accept the Senate version. The main difference between the Senate bill is that it includes funding for the International Monetary Fund. Republicans have objected to this spending as unnecessary in an emergency war supplemental spending bill. If the IMF provisions are included, House Republicans may not vote for it like they did the original House version. It's possible that the IMF funding will be taken out during the amendment process, but if not, there could be some intense House-Senate negotiations by the end of the week. I expect the Senate to pass some version of the bill by a wide margin. I hope that some of the most anti-war Democrats, like Russ Feingold (WI) and Barbara Boxer (CA), are forceful in their insistence that we don't commit to a never-ending quagmire in Afghanistan.
Congressional leaders want to get this bill to the President's desk before this Friday, because otherwise the Pentagon will have to wait a couple more weeks to get funding.
THE HOUSE: The House also has a packed week on tap. After considering suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will take up four significant bills starting on Wednesday. First, the House will take up the Senate version of the "Helping Families Save Their Homes" Act. This bill originally had the "cramdown" provision, allowing bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages. That provision was taken out by the Senate. The House will send vote on a revised version on Wednesday (I'm not sure what they're adding) and will send it back to the Senate, so they upper chamber can vote on changes by the end of the week.
The House then moves on to a bill authored by conservative Democrat, and former NFL-bust, Heath Shuler (NC), entitled " Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009." The bill expands small business development programs under the Small Business Administration, and includes new programs to help entrepreneurial veterans, women, and Native Americans. The bill is co-sponsored by a number of Republicans, so I expect it to pass pretty easily.
Finally, the House will vote on two authorization bills. The first reauthorizes funding for the FAA through 2012. It makes some substantive changes to FAA policy, which I would probably understand more if I was a pilot. One of the proposed changes is increased funding for the NextGen navigation system. If you're REALLY interested, you can read this. The second authorizes funding for the Transportation Security Administration. I'm not sure what policy changes, if any, are included in this bill, because they have not released the summary.
Both chambers also might vote on conference reports on a few other bills, including military procurement. As I said last week, it's very possible that Obama gets a big pile of legislation on his desk to sign by week's end.
That's it for now. Join us tonight for the Daily Strike, and leave your comments!
THE WHITE HOUSE: The President, fresh off reconciliation with Notre Dame Catholics over abortion, the President wades into another seemingly irreconcilable conflict today when he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has been Prime Minister (his second go-around) for only a few months, and this is his first sit-down with the President. I'm most interested in their one-on-one meeting from 10:30-11:30 this morning. Will Obama push hard for concessions from Netanyahu to help foster a renewed peace effort with the Palestinians? Netanyahu is a center-right politician who hasn't exactly shown affinity for U.S.-led peace efforts in the past. He, unlike other Israeli politicians, has never committed to a two state solution. My fantasy would be an LBJ-style stare down in which Obama intimidates Netanyahu into accepting a new road map for peace. I can dream.
The President has a quiet rest of the day, and week for that matter. The other known major event on the President's calendar is a speech on Thursday on the subject of Guantanamo Bay, torture, the memos, the photos etc. This speech, according to Politico.com is designed to "elevate the coverage/conversation." It looks like this speech is following the pattern of several past Obama speeches. After an acute scandal breaks out, Obama, after letting the American people digest it a little bit, gives a speech explaining the key issues in context, and talks to the American people like adults. This type of speech has done wonders for him in the past. In the wake of the Jeremiah Wright scandal last year, Obama gave one of his best speech on race relations. Last month, Obama gave a speech at Georgetown on the "five pillars" of the economy. If Obama did not give speeches like this, issues like torture would get down in the weeds of "who knew what, when." The President wants the American people to understand the broader context. I will be anxious to see what he says.
THE SENATE: Congress enters the last week in session before the Memorial Day recess, and both chambers have a lot of work to do. The Senate tomorrow will vote on cloture on the Credit Card Bill of Rights. If the motion gets the required 60 votes (which it almost certainly will), Senators will vote on a series of germane (relevant) amendments (a list agreed to by the two party leaders) prior to a vote on final passage. The Senate will then move on to consider the war funding bill, which passed the House last week. It seems like the Senate always waits until the last minute to debate important funding bills, and the House, under strict time constraints, is usually forced to accept the Senate version. The main difference between the Senate bill is that it includes funding for the International Monetary Fund. Republicans have objected to this spending as unnecessary in an emergency war supplemental spending bill. If the IMF provisions are included, House Republicans may not vote for it like they did the original House version. It's possible that the IMF funding will be taken out during the amendment process, but if not, there could be some intense House-Senate negotiations by the end of the week. I expect the Senate to pass some version of the bill by a wide margin. I hope that some of the most anti-war Democrats, like Russ Feingold (WI) and Barbara Boxer (CA), are forceful in their insistence that we don't commit to a never-ending quagmire in Afghanistan.
Congressional leaders want to get this bill to the President's desk before this Friday, because otherwise the Pentagon will have to wait a couple more weeks to get funding.
THE HOUSE: The House also has a packed week on tap. After considering suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will take up four significant bills starting on Wednesday. First, the House will take up the Senate version of the "Helping Families Save Their Homes" Act. This bill originally had the "cramdown" provision, allowing bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages. That provision was taken out by the Senate. The House will send vote on a revised version on Wednesday (I'm not sure what they're adding) and will send it back to the Senate, so they upper chamber can vote on changes by the end of the week.
The House then moves on to a bill authored by conservative Democrat, and former NFL-bust, Heath Shuler (NC), entitled " Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009." The bill expands small business development programs under the Small Business Administration, and includes new programs to help entrepreneurial veterans, women, and Native Americans. The bill is co-sponsored by a number of Republicans, so I expect it to pass pretty easily.
Finally, the House will vote on two authorization bills. The first reauthorizes funding for the FAA through 2012. It makes some substantive changes to FAA policy, which I would probably understand more if I was a pilot. One of the proposed changes is increased funding for the NextGen navigation system. If you're REALLY interested, you can read this. The second authorizes funding for the Transportation Security Administration. I'm not sure what policy changes, if any, are included in this bill, because they have not released the summary.
Both chambers also might vote on conference reports on a few other bills, including military procurement. As I said last week, it's very possible that Obama gets a big pile of legislation on his desk to sign by week's end.
That's it for now. Join us tonight for the Daily Strike, and leave your comments!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/5/09-Big Day in DC
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. A very busy day in the Capital, so let's get to it.
SENATE: The Senate has postponed a vote to close off debate on the omnibus appropriations bill until early next week. Majority Leader Reid just announced that he is one vote shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. The few Republicans who otherwise support the underlying bill apparently wanted to let some of their colleagues offer additional amendments, so they are refusing to end debate. What's enormously frustrating is that if one of the "reform-minded" Democrats would at least vote to cut off debate, we could dispose of this bill and move on to other pressing business. It looks like there will now be votes on Republican amendments Monday night, with final passage slated for sometime Tuesday.
Since the bill temporarily funding government agencies expires tomorrow, both Houses of Congress will have to pass another stopgap measure through next Tuesday. I expect both Houses to do so by unanimous consent.
So far, every amendment has been rejected, meaning that the bill can be directly sent to President Obama. Don't expect a big signing ceremony for this piece of legislation. For one, it was full of earmarks, which the Republicans had a field day with. Two, Obama is far more concerned about his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2010, which will begin it's Congressional journey later this month. But our government is funded, at about $20 billion more than it would have been if George W. Bush had accepted the Democratic spending bills last year. They can squawk all they want about earmarks, but the omnibus bill makes important investments in key areas, like health care and education.
Let's get to today's failed amendments on the bill:
-The first was offered by Senator Wicker (R-MS). This amendment would have forbid money from going going to the United Nations Population Fund if it would go to coercive abortion or forced sterilization. Another proxy vote on the abortion issue, and more proof that the Senate has a pro-choice majority. The amendment failed 55-39. All Democrats voted no except for Senators Bayh (IN), Casey (PA) (he interestingly only votes against the party-line on abortion), and Nelson (NE). Republicans voting yes: The stimulus trio! (Collins and Snowe of Maine, and Specter (PA)).
-Next was amendment offered by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, which had something to do with the repromulgation of final rules relating to polar bears. I have no real idea what this means, but it failed, so we don't have to worry about it. The only Democrats to vote yes were Murkowski's Alaska colleague Mark Begich, and Nelson (NE). No Republicans voted in the negative.
-The next amendment was right out of the old Republican playbook of attacking the United Nations. Offered by Senator Inhofe (R-OK), the amendment would prohibit the U.S. from sending any federal dollars to the United Nations if the UN were to impose any tax on America. I have never heard of any such proposal. Have you? Amazingly, the amendment only failed 51-43. Democrats Bayh (IN), Dorgan (ND) and Nelson (NE) joined every Republican in voting for the proposal.
-Next was an amendment by Senator Thune (R-SD) that would have given money to an emergency health and safety fund for American Indians. The amendment was overwhelmingly defeated 68-26, seemlingly because it took money away from other programs in the bill. Thune's South Dakota colleague, Senator Tim Johnson, was the only Democrat who joined 25 Republicans in supporting the amendment. The amendment would have required 60 votes anyway, because it violated budget rules.
-The final amendment, offered by Senator Kyl (R-AZ) would have forbid the government from contracting with any company who has business with Iran's energy sector. The amendment failed 53-41. Democrats voting for it included Senators Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI), Lieberman (CT) (a big Iran-hater), Nelson (FL) and Nelson (NE). Republicans Corker (TN) and Lugar (IN) voted no.
In other circumstances, it's possible that the Senate would have approved of some of these amendments. In this case, however, Democrats were intent on finishing the bill as quickly as possible, and the addition of these amendments would have required the bill to be returned to the House.
The Senate next week will likely consider the housing legislation just passed in the House of Representatives. Speaking of which...
HOUSE: The House of Representatives passed a bill today to allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages, otherwise known as "the cramdown bill". The bill had been modified after some centrist Democrats made objections late last week. The centrists won a key concession, a provision that requires homeowners to first work for a voluntary loan modification through a lender before declaring bankruptcy. The compromise was made into a substitute amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren of California. The amendment passed 263-164 with all Democrats and 10 Republicans voting in the affirmative. Republican defectors: Castle (DE), Diaz-Balart (FL) and his brother (FL), Foxx (NC), Jones (NC), Lance (NJ), McHugh (NY) Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Turner (OH) and Upton (MI). Looks like it's hard to toe the party line when you're from high foreclosure states like Michigan, Florida and Ohio.
The House then moved onto a couple of other amendments. The first was offered by Tom Price, Republican of Georgia. It would have forbid any federal money from going to borrowers who lied about their income to obtain loans, as well as to lenders who misled borrowers about the terms of loans. The amendment failed on a very close 218-211 vote. 37 Democrats joined every Republican in voting for it. I won't write out the full list, you can find it on the Blue Dog Democrats' website (basically). The House also approved an amendment offered by freshman Democrat Gary Peters of Michigan. I'm not quite sure what this amendment was about, but it apparently wasn't too controversial, as it passed 423-2.
The Republicans then offered a motion to recommit which would have replaced the whole bill with a Republican alternative that did not include the "cramdown" provision. The motion failed 242-182, with 8 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting yes. The crossover Democrats: Barrow (GA), Bright (AL), Childers (MS), Donnelly (IN), Marshall (GA), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID) and Teague (NM).
The underlying bill passed 234-191. 34 Democrats voted against the bill, while seven brave Republicans voted for it. Those Republicans were Castle (DE), the Diaz Balart's (FL), Jones (NC), McHugh (NY), Ros-Lehtinen (FL), and Turner (OH). Similar to the Lofgren amendment vote. The Democrats, again, were mostly conservative "Blue Dog" members.
WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE SUMMIT: Today, President Obama held a health care summit at the White House with all stakeholders, including insurers, providers, consumers and members of Congress. The participants spent a couple of hours in different discussion groups, before participating in a question and answer session with the President. Usually these meetings are more for show, to make everyone feel involved in the process. The most interesting part of today's meeting was the presence of ailing Senator Ted Kennedy, who despite his health, promised to be a foot solider in the reform effort.
Obama offered few specifics, but it seemed from watching some of the breakout discussions, that a large coalition of groups would support requiring citizens to purchase coverage. The Democrats in Congress have indicated that they hope to move on a comprehensive health reform bill later this spring.
SENATE: The Senate has postponed a vote to close off debate on the omnibus appropriations bill until early next week. Majority Leader Reid just announced that he is one vote shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. The few Republicans who otherwise support the underlying bill apparently wanted to let some of their colleagues offer additional amendments, so they are refusing to end debate. What's enormously frustrating is that if one of the "reform-minded" Democrats would at least vote to cut off debate, we could dispose of this bill and move on to other pressing business. It looks like there will now be votes on Republican amendments Monday night, with final passage slated for sometime Tuesday.
Since the bill temporarily funding government agencies expires tomorrow, both Houses of Congress will have to pass another stopgap measure through next Tuesday. I expect both Houses to do so by unanimous consent.
So far, every amendment has been rejected, meaning that the bill can be directly sent to President Obama. Don't expect a big signing ceremony for this piece of legislation. For one, it was full of earmarks, which the Republicans had a field day with. Two, Obama is far more concerned about his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2010, which will begin it's Congressional journey later this month. But our government is funded, at about $20 billion more than it would have been if George W. Bush had accepted the Democratic spending bills last year. They can squawk all they want about earmarks, but the omnibus bill makes important investments in key areas, like health care and education.
Let's get to today's failed amendments on the bill:
-The first was offered by Senator Wicker (R-MS). This amendment would have forbid money from going going to the United Nations Population Fund if it would go to coercive abortion or forced sterilization. Another proxy vote on the abortion issue, and more proof that the Senate has a pro-choice majority. The amendment failed 55-39. All Democrats voted no except for Senators Bayh (IN), Casey (PA) (he interestingly only votes against the party-line on abortion), and Nelson (NE). Republicans voting yes: The stimulus trio! (Collins and Snowe of Maine, and Specter (PA)).
-Next was amendment offered by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, which had something to do with the repromulgation of final rules relating to polar bears. I have no real idea what this means, but it failed, so we don't have to worry about it. The only Democrats to vote yes were Murkowski's Alaska colleague Mark Begich, and Nelson (NE). No Republicans voted in the negative.
-The next amendment was right out of the old Republican playbook of attacking the United Nations. Offered by Senator Inhofe (R-OK), the amendment would prohibit the U.S. from sending any federal dollars to the United Nations if the UN were to impose any tax on America. I have never heard of any such proposal. Have you? Amazingly, the amendment only failed 51-43. Democrats Bayh (IN), Dorgan (ND) and Nelson (NE) joined every Republican in voting for the proposal.
-Next was an amendment by Senator Thune (R-SD) that would have given money to an emergency health and safety fund for American Indians. The amendment was overwhelmingly defeated 68-26, seemlingly because it took money away from other programs in the bill. Thune's South Dakota colleague, Senator Tim Johnson, was the only Democrat who joined 25 Republicans in supporting the amendment. The amendment would have required 60 votes anyway, because it violated budget rules.
-The final amendment, offered by Senator Kyl (R-AZ) would have forbid the government from contracting with any company who has business with Iran's energy sector. The amendment failed 53-41. Democrats voting for it included Senators Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI), Lieberman (CT) (a big Iran-hater), Nelson (FL) and Nelson (NE). Republicans Corker (TN) and Lugar (IN) voted no.
In other circumstances, it's possible that the Senate would have approved of some of these amendments. In this case, however, Democrats were intent on finishing the bill as quickly as possible, and the addition of these amendments would have required the bill to be returned to the House.
The Senate next week will likely consider the housing legislation just passed in the House of Representatives. Speaking of which...
HOUSE: The House of Representatives passed a bill today to allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages, otherwise known as "the cramdown bill". The bill had been modified after some centrist Democrats made objections late last week. The centrists won a key concession, a provision that requires homeowners to first work for a voluntary loan modification through a lender before declaring bankruptcy. The compromise was made into a substitute amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren of California. The amendment passed 263-164 with all Democrats and 10 Republicans voting in the affirmative. Republican defectors: Castle (DE), Diaz-Balart (FL) and his brother (FL), Foxx (NC), Jones (NC), Lance (NJ), McHugh (NY) Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Turner (OH) and Upton (MI). Looks like it's hard to toe the party line when you're from high foreclosure states like Michigan, Florida and Ohio.
The House then moved onto a couple of other amendments. The first was offered by Tom Price, Republican of Georgia. It would have forbid any federal money from going to borrowers who lied about their income to obtain loans, as well as to lenders who misled borrowers about the terms of loans. The amendment failed on a very close 218-211 vote. 37 Democrats joined every Republican in voting for it. I won't write out the full list, you can find it on the Blue Dog Democrats' website (basically). The House also approved an amendment offered by freshman Democrat Gary Peters of Michigan. I'm not quite sure what this amendment was about, but it apparently wasn't too controversial, as it passed 423-2.
The Republicans then offered a motion to recommit which would have replaced the whole bill with a Republican alternative that did not include the "cramdown" provision. The motion failed 242-182, with 8 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting yes. The crossover Democrats: Barrow (GA), Bright (AL), Childers (MS), Donnelly (IN), Marshall (GA), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID) and Teague (NM).
The underlying bill passed 234-191. 34 Democrats voted against the bill, while seven brave Republicans voted for it. Those Republicans were Castle (DE), the Diaz Balart's (FL), Jones (NC), McHugh (NY), Ros-Lehtinen (FL), and Turner (OH). Similar to the Lofgren amendment vote. The Democrats, again, were mostly conservative "Blue Dog" members.
WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE SUMMIT: Today, President Obama held a health care summit at the White House with all stakeholders, including insurers, providers, consumers and members of Congress. The participants spent a couple of hours in different discussion groups, before participating in a question and answer session with the President. Usually these meetings are more for show, to make everyone feel involved in the process. The most interesting part of today's meeting was the presence of ailing Senator Ted Kennedy, who despite his health, promised to be a foot solider in the reform effort.
Obama offered few specifics, but it seemed from watching some of the breakout discussions, that a large coalition of groups would support requiring citizens to purchase coverage. The Democrats in Congress have indicated that they hope to move on a comprehensive health reform bill later this spring.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
It's (Somewhat) Official
The House and Senate have reached a tentative agreement on a stimulus package worth $790 billion. From what I hear, it should head to a vote in the House tomorrow, and the Senate on Friday. Conferees came up with a package lower than both the House and Senate bills. Details on the plan are not completely avaiable, but from what I can understand, they have eliminated some tax credits from the Senate package, like a $15,000 housing credit and a credit on auto purchases. Apparently, they also restored funding to education programs that the Senate had previously cut, and restored much of the direct aid to states.
It seems like a good deal to me, considering that a lot of the spending that was trimmed out were Senate amendments from Republicans who had no interest in supporting the bill.
We will write much more on this tonight, but the reason I say it's somewhat official, is that Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter, the Republican "Fili-busters" if you will, were all at the press conference praising the agreement. With their votes, the Senate can overcome all procedural hurdles. I don't expect any Democrats to jet because of this compromise. The House should pass the bill relatively easily.
Pop the champagne corks!
It seems like a good deal to me, considering that a lot of the spending that was trimmed out were Senate amendments from Republicans who had no interest in supporting the bill.
We will write much more on this tonight, but the reason I say it's somewhat official, is that Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter, the Republican "Fili-busters" if you will, were all at the press conference praising the agreement. With their votes, the Senate can overcome all procedural hurdles. I don't expect any Democrats to jet because of this compromise. The House should pass the bill relatively easily.
Pop the champagne corks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
