House Rushing to Finish its Work for the Year

December 16, 2009

Google News/Associated Press

By Andrew Taylor

In a headlong rush to leave town for the year, the House is trying to clear its plate of legislation to finance the military, help the jobless and permit the government to run up more debt.

Democratic leaders also are touting a new $154 billion measure combining help for state and local governments and the unemployed with nearly $50 billion in spending on highways, housing and school repair as part of a year-end plan to create jobs. That measure was scheduled for a vote along with the other issues Wednesday, though the Senate won’t act this year.

Much of Wednesday’s action would simply punt a host of difficult issues into next year by extending for just two months expiring funding for highway and other infrastructure projects.

An exception is the $626 billion Pentagon budget bill, which has been held back to serve as a locomotive to tug a bunch of unrelated provisions into law as Congress rushes to finish its work in the dwindling days of this year.

Other measures to be included in the defense bill include two-month extensions of federal jobless benefits approved as part of the economic stimulus package in February, health insurance subsidies for the unemployed and several provisions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act that are set to expire.

The spate of two-month extensions is required because the House and Senate have simply run out of time to iron out Congress’ typical flood of year-end business, as the notoriously balky Senate is tied up with the health care overhaul bill.

“In a world of alternatives, that’s the one we have,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledging that the need to revisit so many controversial items early next year will be a huge headache for Democrats, who control Congress.

Particularly troublesome is must-pass legislation to make sure the government doesn’t default on its obligations when it hits its $12.1 trillion limit on borrowing in the coming days. A $200 billion-plus extension is required, Hoyer said.

Plans for a far bigger increase in the federal debt limit that would have ensured lawmakers didn’t have to vote on it before next year’s midterm elections fell through.

Democratic leaders had proposed a huge increase of about $1.8 trillion, but ran into trouble from fiscal conservatives in their own party, particularly Senate moderates who wanted to tie the ceiling increase to creation of a task force on deficit reduction.

Hoyer also said the House will approve a stopgap measure to ensure that the Pentagon isn’t deprived of money because of congressional delays in approving the defense bill.

House action on all those bills would conclude its major tasks for the year. It still would have to wait for the Senate, where debate could spill over into Christmas week, depending on Senate action on the health care bill.

A host of tax issues would be ignored entirely, including action to prevent the estate tax from expiring Jan. 1. The tax is set to disappear in 2010 but return in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent for estates over $1 million. Also off the agenda is the extension of about 30 business-related tax breaks that will end Dec. 31.

It’s expected that Congress will have to act retroactively to address these tax issues next year.

Action on the defense bill would close out congressional action on 12 spending bills to fund agency operating budgets for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Click here for the full report.

The House Passes Health Care Bill

November 9, 2009

MyWay

By Erica Werner

The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed landmark health care reform legislation, handing President Barack Obama a hard won victory on his signature domestic priority.

Republicans were nearly unanimous in opposing the plan that would expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry.

The 220-215 vote late Saturday cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

Obama, who went to Capitol Hill earlier on Saturday to lobby wavering Democrats, said in a statement after the vote, “I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year.”

“It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,” said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

But minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

“We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, ‘this is making me sick,’” said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich.

In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government’s mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill’s most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private companies.

The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, “We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system.”

To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare’s projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.

Click here for the full report.

Value Added Tax in the Works

October 30, 2009

The Hill

Michael O’Brien

A new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

Pelosi, appearing on PBS’s “The Charlie Rose Show” asserted that “it’s fair to look at” the VAT as part of an overhaul of the nation’s tax code.

“I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves,” Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.

Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.

“They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers,” Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. “So their cars coming into our country don’t have a healthcare component cost.

“Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that’s one part of it,” the Speaker added. “But in the scheme of things, I think it’s fair look at a value- added tax as well.”

Pelosi said that any new taxes would come after the Congress finishes the healthcare debate consuming most lawmakers’ time, and that it may come as part of a larger overhaul to the tax code.

The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.

Click here for the full report

Working Hard or Hardly Working?

October 7, 2009

POLITICO

By Jake Sherman

Like most Americans, members of the House are expected to report promptly — no excuses — when summoned by their bosses for the start of another workweek. One difference: For lawmakers, starting time doesn’t come until about 6:30 Tuesday evening.

After taking control of the House in 2006 — and again when President Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) boasted that lawmakers would work four or five days a week to bring change to America.

But midway through Obama’s first year in office, Hoyer’s House has settled into a more leisurely routine. Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays, and they’re usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays.

Since the House returned for its fall session on Sept. 8, it has stuck around to vote on a Friday just once: to approve a 5.8 percent increase in Congress’s own budget.

A Democratic leadership aide vehemently defended the schedule, saying members shouldn’t be kept in Washington for four or five days when work can be completed in fewer.

And with health care reform, climate change legislation and a slew of appropriations bills lined up in the Senate, House Democrats know that a longer workweek in their chamber might do little more than add to the backlog.

Asked about the abbreviated workweeks, Hoyer said Tuesday:  “I think you understand why we’re doing it.” He pointed to the appropriations bills stalled in the Senate, but he didn’t cast blame at senators for moving so slowly. “It takes a long time to do it,” he said.

“We’d all love to see some bills back [from the Senate] quickly,” said a Democratic aide.

The House got off to a fast start this year, approving a stimulus plan, an omnibus spending bill and climate change legislation, as well as getting health care reform bills through three committees. But now lawmakers and staff are enjoying an Indian summer of sorts; Mondays are dead, and Fridays have the Hill set clad in jeans and oxfords, awaiting the next vote four long days away.

Two-and-a-half-day workweeks are not exactly what Hoyer had planned.

In December 2006, as he prepared to take the reins as majority leader, Hoyer said lawmakers should expect to be on duty in the House from 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to around 2 p.m. on Fridays.

When Hoyer released his 2009 legislative calendar last December, he said: “The American people voted decisively for change this November, and we will work hard to make that change a reality.”

According to that calendar — no longer on Hoyer’s website but cached through Google — the House was to have been in session 120 days by now. In fact, it’s been in session for 113 days — and many of those have been brief.

Under the original 2009 schedule, the House was to have had votes on seven of the past eight business days. As it turned out, the House voted on just five of those eight days and worked 25 hours and 43 minutes on passing legislative material — an average of three hours and 36 minutes of legislative debate and voting each day, according to a POLITICO analysis of House voting records. The calculation doesn’t include special-order and one-minute speeches, essentially colloquies used by members to advance positions or score political points.

Of course, time on the floor debating and voting on bills doesn’t represent the totality of the congressional workload. Members of Congress meet with constituents, special-interest groups, advisers and colleagues to discuss legislation.

“We’re in the middle of a health care reform bill,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This is a 24/7 operation.”

At busy times of the year — particularly when lawmakers are trying to finish work in time for a recess — the legislating hours can be long, at least by Hill standards. On a particularly busy week in July, the House spent 36 hours and 11 minutes on legislative debate and voting — an average of seven hours and 15 minutes a day considering laws.

Moreover, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said, lawmakers suffer from the misconception that they’re off duty when they’re back home. In fact, he and other lawmakers say, they put in a lot of time in their districts meeting with constituents and doing other work.

But asked about the short weeks in Washington, Cummings punted.

“I think you need to talk to Hoyer about that,” he said. “Don’t you worry, you’ll get your money’s worth.”

Hoyer spokeswoman Katie Grant said complaints about the House schedule are nothing new.

“Every fall we can count [on] two things: The leaves change colors, and stories on the floor schedule change from Congress doing too much to [Congress] doing too little,” she said. “In fact, we have spent a great deal of time in session and gotten a tremendous amount of work done this year, and members are continuing to work both in Washington and their districts.”

Indeed, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) was miffed Tuesday morning when the House Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing on what was supposed to be a “member-travel day.”

“They hammered on us, and they should look in the mirror to see how they’re running the show now,” Garrett said of the Democrats.

But while some GOP lawmakers grumbled in 2006 when Hoyer first talked of a five-day-a-week schedule, at least one was willing to look at the bright side Tuesday.

“Two and a half days a week is plenty of time to consider the ideas coming out of this Democrat-led House,” said Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “Imagine the damage they could do with five-day workweeks.”

Click here for the full report.

Strange Martial Law via Food Control: HR 2749

June 28, 2009

Farmwars.info

By The Writers’ Collective

HR 2749 is a strange bill in many ways.  While the other “food safety” bills have been around since winter, allowing for much public discussion on the internet, HR 2749 has only suddenly appeared.  It is a mutant conglomeration of the worst of the other bills, with the addition of one very original part – martial law.

When it was a draft, it was Waxman’s bill.  But once given a number, it became Dingel’s who already had a “food safety” bill, HR 759.  So Waxman got none and Dingel got two.  (Was this because Waxman, being Jewish, was a hideous choice to introduce a bill with Codex in it – designed by the Nazi pharmaceutical companies that funded Hitler, provided the gas for the gas chambers, experimented on prisoners with vaccines – and is expected to kill millions?)

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

[This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.  The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

The bill is unusual, too, because slow as it was to appear. The little bugger of bill has made up for it since.  It got a number on June 10, went to committee on June 17, passed instantly, and is headed for a vote on the floor of the House.

The first Patriot Act was passed using fear of terrorism. This Patriot Act is more coy, hiding under a cloak of “food safety” and but also using fear – fear of food contamination.  Evidently, Americans are supposed to be so frightened by the slightest possibility of a terrorist or of E-coli, they would trade away all their precious, hard fought freedoms for the promise of safety.  Or at least, that is what the trade-off has become.  “Terrorism” and “contamination” are great bugaboos used to open doors to an end to the US Constitution.  That is exactly what we are left with after those who wrote HR 2749 are done.

Who did write these bills?  It seems Monsanto had not only a hand, but a “defining” influence. 

This redefining of reality is what seems to be underlying all the loss of freedom.  Normal and free are disappearing into the maw of corporate definitions of reality.

So, we begin with contaminated food from filthy corporate processors and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  And what do we end up with after that reality is ground up by corporate legal hands?

Click here for the full report and links from Farmwars.info.