FatherGarage.com

House Republicans on Thursday continued their steady march toward approving the largest spending cuts in modern history – a swift, huge slash of more than $60 billion from domestic programs and foreign aid that Republicans said would fulfill their promise to shrink government outlays, but Democrats said would harm the fragile economic recovery.

The White House has already threatened to veto the bill, and Senate Democrats have voiced strong objections to the scale of cuts by the House Republicans, putting the parties on a collision course that officials warned could lead to a shutdown of the federal government early next month.

The stop-gap measure now financing the government expires on March 4, and the speaker of the House, John A. Boehner of Ohio, bluntly warned on Thursday that Republicans would not agree to even a temporary extension unless it reduced spending, which is now generally being held at 2010 levels.

“When we say we’re going to cut spending,” Mr. Boehner intoned at a news conference, “read my lips: ‘we’re going to cut spending.’”

While Mr. Boehner accused Democrats of threatening to shut the government down to avoid making cuts, Democrats accused Republicans of risking a shutdown by refusing to compromise. “It is unproductive to resort to threats of a shutdown without any negotiations,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said in a statement.

After working through Wednesday night and into the predawn hours on Thursday, lawmakers returned to the House floor and clashed fiercely over proposed amendments to the spending measure. A final vote was not expected until after midnight, but with the new Republican majority resolute in executing big cuts, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Republicans now control the House 241 to 193 with one vacancy.

Because the rules of debate required that any restorations in funding be offset with corresponding cuts elsewhere, the total reductions were certain to exceed the roughly $60 billion originally included in the spending measure by the House Appropriations Committee. The bill covers spending for the remainder of the current fiscal year, which runs through Sept. 30.

While the final tally remained to be counted, there was no doubt that House Republicans would succeed in approving their bill after the sort of raucous free-wheeling debate that has been a rarity in the House in recent years. Rank-and-file lawmakers put forward hundreds of amendments, and the outcome of some votes went against the wishes of Republican leaders.

Mr. Boehner said the debate underscored his commitment to letting the House work its will. But long before the vote, he was promoting the outcome. “As part of our effort to liberate our economy from the shackles of out-of-control spending,” he said, “the House will soon vote to cut discretionary spending by over $100 billion over the last seven months of this fiscal year.”

He added, “That’s five times larger than any discretionary spending cuts ever considered by the House. We’ve exceeded the commitment that we made in our Pledge to America, and there are more reforms and cuts to come.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Alex Wong/Getty Images Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and President Hu Jintao of China met on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

2:13 p.m. | Updated There was not much give and take as President Hu Jintao of China met with House members this morning, according to those who were in attendance. Representative Kevin Brady, a Republican of Texas, called it “mostly speechifying.”

After a day of being toasted at the White House, Mr. Hu traveled to the chillier end of Pennsylvania Avenue on Thursday to meet with lawmakers waiting to take him to task over testy issues such as human rights to trade policy.

But the format of the meetings — lawmakers afterwards described a meeting with House leaders as stilted and formal – didn’t allow for quite as much barbed criticism as some of the congressional members apparently had hoped.

“We weren’t given a chance,” Rep. Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said afterward.

He and other lawmakers said that Mr. Hu delivered prepared remarks lasting about 20 minutes. The only Representatives who spoke were John Boehner, the House speaker, and Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader. Mr. Boehner brought up issues involving trade and North Korea, and Ms. Pelosi brought up human rights issues, including the treatment of Liu Xiaobao, the Nobel Prize winner.

“I had a really detailed question prepared about the WTO government procurement agreement,” Rep. Charles Boustany, Republican of Louisiana, said afterwards, referring to the lengthy process involving China’s accession to the World Trade Organization government procurement agreement.

Among the other House members who attended were:

Eric Cantor (Republican Leader)
Kevin McCarthy (Republican Whip)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs)
Steny Hoyer (Democratic Whip)
Jim Clyburn (Democratic Assistant Leader)
Howard Berman (Ranking Democrat, Committee on Foreign Affairs)

Mr. Hu also met with Senate leaders, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who on Wednesday called Mr. Hu a “dictator” during an interview. The senators discussed concerns about China’s currency, which American officials worry remains undervalued, according to one congressional aide who was in the meeting.

It was never clear how sternly lawmakers might speak to Mr. Hu in private, but in public some of them have been a bit caustic, while others have been direct without stinging.

Mr. Boehner, in a statement after the House meeting, said: “China is now our second largest trading partner and will undoubtedly be a critical economic partner in the future. That’s why I believe it is important that we continue to resolve our differences in ways that benefit both of our countries and our people.

“In our meeting we addressed some of those challenges, including the need for stronger intellectual property protections in China and curtailing the aggressive behavior of North Korea.

“And finally, we raised our strong, ongoing concerns with reports of human rights violations in China, including the denial of religious freedom, and the use of coercive abortion as a consequence of the ‘one child’ policy. When it comes to guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of all her citizens, including and especially the unborn, Chinese leaders have a responsibility to do better, and the United States has a responsibility to hold them to account.”

On his way into today’s meeting with Senators, John McCain said, referring to the state dinner at the White House last night: “There’s a certain amount of irony that a Nobel Peace Prize winner should be hosting a dinner and last year’s Nobel Prize winner is under house arrest.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Drew Angerer/The New York Times Over on the Senate side of the Capitol, Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, right, introduced his children to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The Capitol has been flooded with 7-year-old boys in ties. Many of them struggled Wednesday to free themselves from the premature choke hold of adulthood, but were thwarted by their mothers, many of them draped in something sparkling and knee-length. The mothers swatted at the tiny hands of their sons, smoothed their wayward cowlicks and directed them to use the bathroom before heading to the House floor.

When a new Congress commences – especially one that welcomes scores of new members – the well-dressed children, long lines to board the Congressional subway and fresh hydrangeas dotting reception rooms are all part of the scene.

Granted a single ticket for a guest on the floor (although young children do not need them), new members spent much of the morning jockeying for extra ones for the many guests they hoped would join them for the big moment.

Before taking the official oaths, the new members headed to the Speaker’s Lobby to pick up the goods – a member’s pin, a voting card, which resembles a driver’s license and the all-important license plate – signifying their new status. Many also attended an early morning bipartisan prayer service at St. Peter’s Church, not far from the House office buildings.

For those who intend to sleep in their offices – because they cannot afford the second set of digs in the capital, or because they are making a point – fresh sheets were unwrapped and new comforters were readied for office couches.

Some new members walked in circles, perhaps in search of an elevator, or directed one another to the Speaker’s Lobby. “Know where you’re going?” said James Lankford of Oklahoma, as he passed Cory Gardner of Colorado in the hallway between House office buildings. “No not yet!” his new colleague replied cheerfully. It’s totally O.K. to be lost this Wednesday. By next Wednesday it might get old.

Over on the Senate side, it was a bit less hectic, but no less formal. Former vice president Dan Quayle, who is hardly a fixture on the Hill these days, escorted Senator Dan Coats, who first replaced Mr. Quayle in the Indiana seat when he became vice president, then retired from the Senate in 1999, and now is back. Mr. Quayle had other business at the Capitol today, too. His son Ben was sworn in as a new member of the House, representing the Third District of Arizona.

Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader in the Senate, was escorted to his swearing in by Paul Laxalt, a former senator and governor of Nevada; notably missing from his side was John Ensign, the Republican senator from his state, whose absence seemed an unusual break with Senate decorum. Another ceremonial statement in a day full of them.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 5, 2011

An earlier version of this blog post misidentified the senator in the photo.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Democrats in the Senate hoping to pass nonbudget-related legislation in the lame-duck session were put on notice by their Republican colleagues Wednesday morning: No tax-cut extension? No laws for you!

In a letter signed by the 42 members of the Republican caucus, delivered to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and mentioned Wednesday on the Senate floor by the minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republicans informed their Democratic counterparts that they would not go forward with “any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.”

The letter goes on: “With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.” 

Washington is locked in a battle over what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts, which expire at the end of the year. President Obama and Democratic lawmakers want to extend the cuts to all Americans except those with income above $250,000, while Republicans want tax cuts extended to Americans at all income levels. Another idea that has been kicking around over the last few weeks — proposed by some Democrats — is raising the expiration income ceiling to households with at least $1 million in income.

At the same time, Congress needs to make a legislative move to keep the government funded before the 112th Congress takes over in January.

Democrats were hoping to force a more ambitious agenda into the final weeks, including the ratification of the New Start treaty, a military authorization bill that would repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision, the extension of unemployment funds and the Dream Act, an immigration bill.

“If they really cared about creating jobs, they should stop blocking a preservation of unemployment insurance, which would create or save hundred of thousands of jobs,” Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said in an e-mail. “Unfortunately this letter is nothing new. Republicans have simply put in writing their political strategy which they have pursued over the last two years: obstruct and delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of the American people. This strategy is very cynical but very obvious and transparent.”

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 1, 2010

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this post said that Senator Harry Reid was from Arizona. He is from Nevada.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The nation’s top two defense officials are scheduled to head to Capitol Hill next week to discuss a Pentagon report gauging the potential effects of repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings on the issue for Dec. 2 and 3, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among those slated to testify on the first day.

Mr. Gates and Mr. Mullen’s appearance is scheduled to come two days after the expected release of the Pentagon study, and as congressional opponents of the policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military try to repeal it during a lame-duck session.

People familiar with a draft of the Pentagon report have said it concludes that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” might create short-term problems within the military, but that those could be handled with strong leadership. The study was set for release on Dec. 1, but Mr. Gates moved the schedule up a day so lawmakers would have more time to examine the report.

In addition to Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen, the two officials who led the Pentagon review — Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham of the Army – are also scheduled to testify on Dec. 2. Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps; Gen. George W. Casey Jr. , the Army chief of staff; and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff – all of whom have expressed reluctance about lifting the ban – are among those expected to testify on Dec. 3.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said last week that he would push to pass the defense legislation that includes the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal during the lame-duck session.

Consideration of that measure was blocked in September, but Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said recently that he and other repeal supporters have enough votes to pass the bill if Senate leaders allowed extensive debate.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The full Senate will vote on a proposed ban on lawmaker-directed spending items known as earmarks, as an amendment to a food safety measure that is currently being debated on the floor. But it will need the support of a super-majority of 67 senators to be approved.

House and Senate Republicans have voted internally in support of a two-year ban on earmarks. But some Senate Democrats have resisted, saying that an outright ban would relinquish some of the Constitutional authority by Congress over government spending.

Under a deal worked out between the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate will vote on an earmark ban proposed by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.

Senators Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Michigan, and Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, have both said publicly that they will support the ban on earmarks.

Other Democrats, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, are certain to oppose the ban.

Earmarks account for a small sliver of federal spending but critics note that they have been a constant source of controversy. Some critics also say that earmarks divert the attention of Congress from its responsibilities overseeing the vast majority of the federal budget that is mostly turned over to the administration and federal agencies.

Even if the full Senate does not approve the earmark ban, Republicans will be in a position over the next two years to block any legislation containing Democrats’ spending items.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.