Congressional_Climate_logo
Lobbyit.com Logo
Table of Contents
TODAY'S HILL ACTION
DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY
DURBIN REJECTS GOP BUDGET CUTS
REPS. KING AND ELLISON CLASH
Congressional 
Climate Bill Tracking 
Keyhole Image H.R.658 - FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011
Keyhole Image H.R.164 - Damaged Vehicle Information Act
Keyhole Image H.R.514 - FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011
Keyhole Image H.R.1 - Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011
Keyhole ImageH.R.4 - Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011
Keyhole Image H.R.96 - Internet Freedom Act
Keyhole Image H.R.605 - Patients' Freedom to Choose Act
Keyhole Image S.244 - State Health Care Choice Act

Join Our Mailing List

 

Follow us on Twitter

 

Find us on Facebook

 

View our profile on LinkedIn

 

Greetings!  
Please enjoy today's issue of the Congressional Climate newsletter, brought to you by Lobbyit.com!
Today's Hill Action: 
 
THE SENATE:

 

The Senate will meet at 2:00 p.m. for morning business. Shortly thereafter, they will proceed into an Executive Session to consider judicial nominations.  

 

SENATE COMMITTEES:
 
No meetings scheduled for today. 
 
THE HOUSE: 

 

No meeting scheduled for today. 

HOUSE COMMITTEES:

No meetings scheduled for today.

Democrats Searching for Unity

 

3-7demsdivided

House Democratic leaders are attempting to do what they were unable to do in the majority: Unite behind a single message.

 

Several Democratic Members say leadership has sent the signal that the party should be strategic in trying to paint a contrast with Republicans and avoid a scattershot approach to amendments - the only real opportunity that they have in the minority to force floor votes. 

 

Top Democrats argue that too many wide-ranging amendments can muddy the party's message and reduce its chances of taking back the House in 2012.

 

"We don't have the opportunity to drive the agenda, so it's making sure that we contrast what we would do with what Republicans are doing," Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.) said.

 

During their four years in the majority, Democratic infighting was common, particularly over major issues such as climate change and health care reform. Prior to and right after their midterm elections defeat, House Democrats were publicly divided over the direction the Caucus should take. Now in the minority, Democrats want to get on the same page.

 

"It's not so much don't do amendments or anything like that. It's simply trying to make sure whatever we do makes clear the way it should have been done and the way it has been done," Becerra said.

 

Some Democratic Members and aides, however, say that as Democrats considered plans to counter Republican initiatives such as the health care repeal and the seven-month stopgap funding bill, leadership pressured rank-and-file lawmakers to rein in the number of amendments that they offer and focus them on jobs, the party's No. 1 talking point.

 

"There's a general consensus that a focused message is a bit more effective than a loud cacophony," said Rep. Jim Moran (Va.), one of the more than 40 Democrats who offered amendments to Republicans' long-term continuing resolution when it was on the floor last month. "We Democrats are always tempted to contribute to the cacophony of concern, but I think the leadership is right that we need a consistent, focused message that is basically jobs, jobs, jobs. ... That's the screening process."

 

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) conveyed the idea that amendments should be jobs-focused to Members during Democratic Caucus meetings, Moran said.  

One senior Democratic aide said the effort began during the health care repeal debate, when Pelosi's office offered to help draft amendments, and continued that practice in the runup to the spending debate.

 

"Her intention was to use that to kill amendments on the CR," the aide said. While her allies are supportive of the effort, the aide said, there are "a lot of Members who don't necessarily think getting advice from Pelosi is what they need to be doing to get re-elected."

 

Pelosi disputed the notion that her strategy was to prevent Members from offering amendments altogether. "We always reserve the right to offer an amendment if we can have the privilege to offer one," she said.

Asked whether it was a better strategy to vote against GOP proposals rather than try to change them, Pelosi said, "It depends."

 

But Rep. Tim Walz, a moderate, said "some people were irritated" that their Democratic colleagues wanted to offer amendments to the continuing resolution that were outside the bounds of the messaging points that leaders wanted to promote.

 

"It's been discussed in Caucus that it dilutes the message, but there's been no concerted effort to stop them," the Minnesota Democrat said.

 

Another moderate Democrat, Rep. Jason Altmire, has several times defected to vote against his party's motions to recommit, another procedural tool that leaders are trying to use to put Republicans on defense. The Pennsylvania lawmaker said leaders had been "leaning pretty hard on people" to stick together on votes.

 

"They, I think, have realized that I'm always going to vote the way I think I should vote for my district," he said.

 

Still other Members, such as Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), said leaders haven't instructed them to limit the number of amendments that they offer.

 

"I have not heard that advice, and they didn't try and deter me from my amendments last week, or the week before last on the CR," DeFazio said.  

The Oregon Democrat said he plans on continuing to offer amendments.

 

"When they get around to trying to eliminate the personal mandate, I want to offer an amendment. ... I think there are better ways to do that stuff," he said.

 

"Maybe that won't fit their messaging, but if I think there is a better way for the country and the people I represent, I would do that."

 

Peterson has gone a step further than just trying to offer amendments to Republican legislation by co-sponsoring energy legislation with two Republicans that would freeze the Environmental Protection Agency's move to rein in industrial power plants and petroleum refiners.

 

"They know I'm going to do what I'm going to do," he said, referring to Democratic leaders.

 

Rep. Robert Andrews, a Pelosi ally and member of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, described the leadership effort to coordinate on amendments as more of a suggestion than an airtight policy.  

"In some instances we're better served by limiting those amendments and making them more coherent, but I wouldn't want to take away the right of any Member to speak his or her mind," the New Jersey Democrat said. "We prefer coherence, but we don't discourage creativity."

 

Another top Democrat, Budget ranking member Chris Van Hollen, said leaders conveyed to Members prior to floor debate on the continuing resolution - which GOP leaders brought to the floor under an open process that prompted the introduction of hundreds of amendments - that "it makes sense to have a focused amendment strategy rather than a scattershot approach."

 

Going forward, the Maryland Democrat said, leaders would continue to try to zero in on the most effective amendments.

 

"You want to use them to draw clear contrasts on important issues," he said. "All these amendments are designed to improve the bill ... The issue is whether you focus your energy on improving it in a particular way." 

Top Senate Democrat rejects GOP's deep budget cuts

 

3-7 durbin

A leading Democrat predicted Sunday that the Senate would reject House Republicans' deep budget cuts, setting up tense negotiations and the need for another short-term spending measure to keep the government operating.

 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, contended that Republicans were unfairly and unwisely placing the burden of spending cuts on domestic programs.

 

"I'm willing to see more deficit reduction, but not out of domestic discretionary spending," Durbin said.

 

In response to a House-passed bill that would cut $61 billion from the federal budget, Senate Democrats put forward a measure that would trim just $6.5 billion from domestic agencies, as President Barack Obama proposed.

 

That would erase billions in cuts for education, housing and other programs sought by Republicans, but leave a massive gap between the two sides. Nonetheless, Obama's chief of staff, William Daley, said the White House and Republicans were not as far apart as the numbers would suggest.

 

"However you slice it, there is a challenge to our government," Daley said. The House and the Senate must agree on a budget, he added, "or this government doesn't fund itself and we look ridiculous."

 

Lawmakers appearing on Sunday's news programs traded charges of who was being more serious when it came to dealing with the nation's fiscal ills. There was little or no talk about how the two sides would reconcile the House bill with a starkly different measure expected to come from the Senate.

 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky asserted that Obama was not serious about the spending and deficit issues even though he had had several discussions with the president.

 

"What I don't see now is any willingness to do anything that's difficult," said McConnell. "I've a number of conversations with people who count at the White House. And I think that, so far, I don't see the level of seriousness that we need."

 

Durbin said he hoped that, following a Senate vote on the budget, lawmakers could reach a bipartisan agreement.

"We need to get very serious, act like adults, sit down and not lurch from one week or two weeks to two weeks in funding our government," he said.   

 

The chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, criticized Senate Democrats for offering a plan that "puts nothing on the table." Asked if he would accept less than $61 billion in cuts, he demurred.

 

"All I can say is here's what we're going to fight for," Hensarling said. "We're going to fight for ... putting America on a fiscally sustainable path to help create jobs today, save our children from bankruptcy tomorrow."

 

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., dismissed the budget cuts supported by House Republicans as an "ideological, extremist, reckless statement" rather than a serious economic plan.

 

"If that were to be, in fact, put in place, it would contribute to the reversal of our recovery. It might even destroy our recovery. It will certainly deny us the competitiveness that we need to move with China, India and other countries into the future," Kerry said.

 

McConnell countered: "What's reckless ... is the $1.6 trillion deficit we're running this year. What's reckless is the $3 trillion we've added to our national debt."

 

Last week Congress passed a bill to fund the government - a continuing resolution - for two weeks, until March 18. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said if a budget agreement were not reached by then, his committee would attempt to approve another short-term funding bill "to give the Senate time to act and the negotiators time to try to resolve the spending problems."

 

"We are determined not to have a shutdown," Rogers said.

 

Daley spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press while McConnell and Kerry appeared on CBS' Face the Nation." Durbin and Hensarling appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Rogers' interview on C-SPAN aired Sunday.

King, Ellison Debate Focusing on U.S. Muslims in Hearing

 

3-7 king

Rep. Keith Ellison cautioned Sunday against singling out American Muslims for investigation by the House Homeland Security Committee. The panel's chairman, meanwhile, criticized cuts to security spending proposed by House Republicans as "dangerous."

 

Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) has scheduled a hearing Thursday about radicalization among the American Muslim community, and Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress, is expected to testify.

 

"It's absolutely the right thing to do for the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to investigate radicalization," Ellison said on CNN's "State of the Union." "But to say we're going to investigate a religious minority, and a particular one, I think is the wrong course of action to take."

 

King, who also appeared on the show, said he believes that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding Americans," but that the "radicalization in this country, which is linked to an overseas enemy" - al Qaeda - must be examined.

 

"It's an international movement with elements here in the United States. And to me, that is a real distinction" from acts like the deadly shooting in January that gravely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-Ariz.), King said. "There's always going to be isolated incidents, isolated fanatics, isolated terrorists, even. But an organized terrorist effort, to me, is different, which requires an investigation unto itself."

 

Ellison was asked to explain his participation in a hearing that he believes will send a negative message to American Muslims. "I believe in engaging the process," he responded. "I think you've got to be involved in the conversation; you've got to offer an alternative view. And I do plan on saying that I challenge the basic premise of the hearings. That I do agree that we should deal with radicalization and violent radicalization, but that singling out one community is the wrong thing to do."

 

Ellison worries that al Qaeda and other groups will use the hearing to make the argument that America is at war with Islam. "That's one of their main recruiting arguments," he said. "That's why I think that we need to be careful about how we use the instrumentality of the government in investigative hearings."

 

On the matter of security spending, King said he was in agreement with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's statement that if the fiscal 2012 budget is based on cuts being proposed by House Republican for fiscal 2011, the department will suffer.

 

"Let me shock Keith by saying that I think that a number of the cuts Republicans have made in the continuing resolution are wrong," King said. "They cut port security by two-thirds, they cut transit security by two-thirds. That's one example right there. We cannot afford those cuts, they are too dangerous. And one attack on subway train or one attack in one port will cost us more money going into the future years than any amount, any small amount they're saving."

Until tomorrow,


Lobbyit.com