appropriations

Tea Party Rallies In City Activists Love To Hate To Send GOP Message On Spending

by AP on March 31, 2011

Huffington Post…

WASHINGTON — The tea partiers who helped drive GOP gains in the last election are rallying in the city they love to hate Thursday, urging Republican House leaders – Speaker John Boehner above all – to resist the drive toward compromise in the protracted fight over the federal budget. Even, they say, if that means Congress fails to do its most important job – paying for the government. And if Boehner opts instead to agree to a deal with President Barack Obama? “You’re going to see massive amounts of (GOP) primaries” in next year’s election, said Mark Meckler of the Tea Party Patriots. If the Ohio Republican strikes a budget deal that doesn’t cut spending enough, Meckler said Wednesday, “he is going to face a primary challenge.” It’s tough talk from a member of the loosely affiliated political force that helped drive Boehner’s Republican troops into the House majority last year on a platform of smaller, more austere government. And during three months in power, Boehner’s been listening. The House passed a tea party-friendly budget that would cut hundreds of programs and eliminate others, including a costly defense project. It also would repeal the Democrats’ year-old health care law and assorted regulations on industry – all unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. The intensifying talks are as much a test of credibility and clout for the tea party as they are a measure of Boehner’s ability to lead. There’s evidence that some of the 87 members of the freshmen class have been educated by their real bosses – their constituents – on the fact that compromise is sometimes the only path to governing. And governing is what lawmakers get paid for. “Compromise on the subject of spending is a tough sell. It doesn’t mean it’s an impossible sell,” said freshman Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., a member of the Appropriations Committee who won his seat with 72 percent of the vote. Though he acknowledges the voters’ mandate to cut spending, “I also live in a realistic world.” Another freshman suggested the no-compromise crowd save their powder. The current, slow-motion showdown is only over a budget to fund the rest of this fiscal year. Just wait, said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, for the fireworks over next year’s budget, as well as a must-pass bill to allow the government to borrow more money to meet its commitments. Republicans hope to use that measure to force further spending cuts on the president. “What I tell folks is: This is like Fort Sumter in the Civil War,” the Illinois Republican said Wednesday. “This is the first fight. The big battle is still ahead of us.” Such rhetoric reflects a reality that budget negotiators have assumed for weeks: That with time, those new to Capitol Hill would learn that the only way a budget passes is with spending cuts that all sides agree on. And that means reductions somewhat less than the $61 billion Republicans approved in the budget the House passed last month. Wednesday night, talks centered on $33 billion in cuts, and there was evidence that members of the broader Republican caucus weren’t balking. “I don’t believe that shutting down government is a solution to the problem. Republicans and Democrats need to work out a compromise,” said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H. “Let’s get this over with and get on to the budget.” The tea party rally Thursday promised political muscle and headline-grabbing rhetoric aimed at reminding lawmakers of the populist budget-cutting furor that propelled them to power. Headlining the event was to be the movement’s star and possible presidential contender Michele Bachmann, who also happens to be the top Republican fundraiser in the House. House Republican leaders weren’t expected to attend the event. But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to defend the tea party movement on the Senate floor against Democrats who have suggested it has lost popularity. A new AP-GFK poll of 1,001 adults conducted March 24-28 showed that support for the movement hasn’t budged since the election. About 30 percent of respondents said they were tea party supporters, the same percentage reported in surveys since October. “If you ask me, the goals of the tea party sound pretty reasonable,” McConnell said in remarks prepared for a Senate floor speech Thursday. “These folks recognize the gravity of the problems we face as a nation, and they’re doing something about it for the sake of our future,” McConnell said. “They’re making their voices heard. And they’ve succeeded in changing the debate here in Washington from how to grow government to how to shrink it.” The senator learned about tea party power in his own backyard last year when the movement’s candidate, now-Sen. Rand Paul, won the GOP nomination over one that McConnell had endorsed. Then, in deference to the tea party’s demand for a ban on so-called earmarks, McConnell reversed years of unapologetic resistance to such a policy and lined up with its supporters. Lest lawmakers forget the lessons of 2010 as they face an April 8 deadline for the current budget, the rally Thursday is aimed at reminding them. “We’re still here,” Meckler said.

Originally posted here:
Tea Party Rallies In City Activists Love To Hate To Send GOP Message On Spending

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Rep. Mike Honda: Cents and Sensibility: The Economic Case Behind Immigration Reform

by on February 7, 2011

House Speaker John Boehner’s recent selection of Rep. Elton Gallegly of California over Rep. Steve King of Iowa to head the Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee is one step closer to the kind of reform for which past administrations, including those of former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, had long called. Both Republican congressmen may be opposed to the kind of reform that House Democrats call for. But Gallegly seems inclined to take a more reasoned approach. Especially if Democrats can explain the economic advantages to reform. And there are many. Immigration brings formidable fiscal implications. Keeping immigrants here or sending them home can save or cost taxpayers dearly. Just count the ways that reform, which puts undocumented immigrants on the path to legalization, could foot our country’s finances. First, any deportation plan for undocumented immigrants would cost our country’s gross domestic product a whopping $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a study by Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Conversely, if we embrace comprehensive immigration reform, we could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. GDP over the next 10 years. The economy could also benefit from a temporary worker program, Hinojosa-Ojeda projected,by raising GDP by $792 billion. Second, immigrants who become U.S. citizens consistently pursue higher-paying jobs and higher education, spend more and provide higher tax revenue. Just imagine what 12 million newly documented Americans could do for the economy. The legalization process also brings economic benefits — like the retention of remittances. Workers send substantial portions of their salary to family members abroad, but reform could reunite families separated by our immigration system and keep monies in the U.S. For example, total U.S. remittances to Latin America was almost $46 billion in 2008. Of that, Mexico received almost $24 billion. Reducing remittances offers obvious cash infusion for our economy, since billions of dollars now sent overseas would be spent instead on U.S. businesses — creating jobs and helping to revive our economy. Third, by giving 2.1 million American students the opportunity to pursue higher education or military service, our government could collect $3.6 trillion over the next 40 years. The DREAM Act, which failed in the Senate in December but remains a bipartisan effort, offers a conditional six-year path to permanent, legal U.S. residence for immigrant youth who demonstrate good moral character and complete at least two years of higher education or U.S. military service. Without the DREAM Act, about 65,000 students a year — honor-roll scholars, star athletes, talented artists and aspiring teachers — will graduate high school and then hit a roadblock. Instead of upward mobility and higher education, they will be forced to live in the shadows and work low-paying jobs. Fourth, the Reuniting Families Act, which I plan to reintroduce this Congress, would allow all Americans to be reunited with their families — including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender “permanent partners.” The economic benefits of this policy cannot be overstated. American workers, with their families by their side, are happier, healthier and more able to succeed than those living apart from loved ones for years on end. By pooling resources, families can do together what they can’t do alone — start small businesses, provide care for the young and old, create U.S. jobs and contribute more to this country’s welfare. Healthier communities have more expendable income and place a lower burden on government social services. This correlation is well substantiated — but it is up to us to make it a reality. We understand that during tough economic times, the natural reaction is to close borders and look inward. Yet the irony of an anti-immigration sentiment, which fears job losses for Americans if more workers enter the U.S., is that it is fiscally prudent to legalize, insure, employ, reunite and educate our immigrants than to keep families apart. This is a time when we must use every available resource to stimulate our economy and control government spending. To my fiscally conservative Republican colleagues, the onus is on you. Left to future Congresses, the number of undocumented immigrants will only increase and the visa waits will only get longer. Meanwhile, we will lose an opportunity to do what’s economically right. The fiscal case is clear: reform now. California Rep. Mike Honda serves on the Appropriations and the Budget Committees and is the Democratic senior whip. Follow Rep Honda on Facebook and Twitter .

Read the original post:
Rep. Mike Honda: Cents and Sensibility: The Economic Case Behind Immigration Reform

Veterans Funding Passes With Overwhelming Majority As Republicans Abandon Tough Talk On Voting Against Spending

July 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — House Republicans who have spent months demanding spending cuts blanched Wednesday at their first opportunity to actually make them, instead joining Democrats in treating a bill to pay for veterans programs in 2011 as politically sacrosanct in an election year. The veterans measure is the first of a dozen spending bills for the upcoming 2011 budget year to come up for a vote. Democrats, meanwhile, were doing some ducking and weaving of their own to avoid time-consuming floor debates and politically difficult votes on other measures. It’s of little surprise that Democrats picked the Veterans Affairs bill as the first in the appropriations pile to bring to a vote. It passed by a 411-6 vote. Only a handful of others are likely to get as far before the November election, even though all 12 are supposed to pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the president before Oct. 1. Last year at this time, the House had passed all 12 bills. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered the only amendments to cut the veterans bill but withdrew them as soon as Democrats started making political hay out of them. Boehner wanted to cut the Veterans Affairs Department’s rapidly growing policy office as well as its congressional lobbying operation and skim $45 million from the VA’s $3.3 billion request for computer systems, which the agency itself admits was too high. Still, Democrats howled. “I couldn’t believe it. You’re coming into an election and you’re taking money away from veterans,” said Veterans Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif. “I guess that’s their definition of supporting the troops.” A spokesman for Boehner said the GOP leader withdrew the amendments so that other Republicans could have a chance to offer theirs. But Boehner only did so after Democrats made it plain they were eager to award him votes and go on the attack. Veterans programs are hardly hurting. The VA’s so-called discretionary budget – the portion adopted by Congress each year – has risen 70 percent over the last five years and would receive a 7 percent boost for next year. Lawmakers say such increases are required by the large number of wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans instead offered various ideas to increase veterans spending, including proposals for renewable energy projects at VA hospitals, health care for women veterans, and a paralympics sports program for disabled veterans. By contrast, Republicans had lots of ideas for cutting transportation and housing programs in anticipation of a floor debate on Thursday, including cuts to Amtrak, the Washington-area Metro system, and across-the-board cuts to agencies. “Wait until tomorrow,” Boehner said. Republicans also complained about a $701 million border measure that passed shortly afterwards. They argued that $500 million for 1,200 additional border patrol agents and for other steps to try to control the U.S.-Mexico border wasn’t paid for with cuts to other programs. Still, Republicans didn’t force a roll call vote that would have put GOP lawmakers on record against the measure. It instead passed by voice vote, along with a $129 million measure to speed processing of patent applications. The underlying $77 billion veterans measure is the easiest for Congress to pass each year because of the popularity of the programs and the high regard that the public holds for the military. This year’s bill includes money to reduce a backlog in processing health claims, additional funding for community health centers and big increases to treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and traumatic brain injury. On the other side of the Capitol, the notoriously balky Senate has made it plain it doesn’t have much time to burn on routine spending bills. As a result, House Democratic leaders appear to have little enthusiasm for taking difficult votes and taking weeks of debate to pass bills that the Senate doesn’t have time for. The Senate Appropriations panel has approved half the bills, but it doesn’t appear that the full chamber will debate any until mid-September at the earliest. “We’re trying to move some of them and see what the Senate does,” said House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis. “The Senate seems to be moving on a different track than we are, but at least they’re moving.” The once-bipartisan House committee have become bitterly polarized as Republicans have sought to force Democrats to cast politically difficult votes. For example, Obey postponed debate and action on the bill to pay for homeland security programs after Republicans signaled they would offer amendments to block the Obama administration’s attempts to nullify Arizona’s controversial immigration law. A federal judge on Wednesday put the most significant portions of the Arizona law on hold.

Read the full article →

House Republicans Eschew Election-Year Earmarks in Bid to Outdo Democrats

March 11, 2010

By Brian Faler March 11 (Bloomberg) — House Republicans announced they will not request any so-called earmarks in an election-year attempt to outdo Democrats in clamping down on the practice of adding money for pet projects to legislation. Republicans agreed to a moratorium in a closed-door meeting today, said Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee. Yesterday, House Democrats said they wouldn’t fund earmarks for defense contractors, energy firms and other companies. Critics say earmarks for companies amount to no-bid contracts for groups that contribute to lawmakers’ re-election campaigns. Both parties are attempting to turn what has been bipartisan support for the earmarking process into a partisan issue they can take to voters, who polls show are concerned about rising federal spending and deficits. Republican leaders issued a joint statement yesterday urging their colleagues to give up projects they called “a symbol of broken Washington.” Lewis, a prominent defender of the earmarking practice, told reporters earlier today he was supporting the moratorium because “you guys paint the picture one way — we’ve got to be responsive.” To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler  in Washington at   or bfaler@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Yes, KBR, Congress is Talking About You

December 26, 2009

Although it was not mentioned by name there are some provisions in the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill which are very clearly aimed at KBR, the former Halliburton company. These are not the sort of provisions that will be making KBR officials happy. Consider Sec. Sec. 8116, “Limitation on Availability of Funds for Execution of Contracts Under LOGCAP.” It says: No later than 90 days after enactment of this Act none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended for the execution of a contract under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) unless the Secretary of the Army determines that the contract explicitly requires the contractor– (1) to inspect and immediately correct deficiencies that present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury so as to ensure compliance with generally accepted electrical standards as determined by the Secretary of Defense in work under the contract; For those who have forgotten, it was KBR which has done the majority of the electrical work at U.S. facilities in Iraq. That work resulted in faulty wiring in far too many facilities, resulting in the low-level electrocutions of 16 U.S soldiers and 2 contractors and hundreds more incurred shock-related injuries in Iraq over a span of four years.. The most recent was 25-year-old Adam Hermanson, a US Air Force veteran-turned private security contractor who died in a shower at the compound of his employer, Triple Canopy, in Baghdad’s Green Zone on September 1, 2009. That a contractor’s apparently shoddy work ended up killing a contractor can only be viewed as ironic. In October an Army task force re-inspecting thousands of potentially unsafe U.S. facilities in Iraq for faulty electrical wiring said KBR, which previously ordered to conduct inspections of its own work, placed 5,600 facilities on a “deferred” list — meaning they were low priority or there were no plans to inspect them. Officials with the Defense Department’s Task Force SAFE said many of the buildings on KBR’s deferred list were still being used by soldiers. Those wanting details on KBR’s offenses over the years should head over Ms. Sparky , an excellent blog on the perils of KBR. And then there was part 3 of Sec. 8116, which says: (3) establish and enforce strict standards for preventing, and immediately addressing and cooperating with the prosecution of, any instances of sexual assault in all of its operations and the operations of its subcontractors. For those who follow KBR this is a not very veiled reference to KBR’s rape problem. Prompted by the allegation that former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones was drugged, stripped, beaten and gang-raped by her co-workers on her fourth day in Iraq in 2005 , this provision bans defense contractors from forcing employees to use arbitration to resolve claims of discrimination and sexual assault. The provision is a result of an amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) to the appropriations bill. Employers and other potential lawsuit targets generally prefer binding arbitration because it keeps disputes out of the court system, where juries can inflict damaging verdicts. The no-arbitration provision would ban defense contracts worth more than $1 million with companies that seek to enforce or establish binding requirements in employee contracts in certain circumstances. On May 16, 2007, Jones filed a civil lawsuit against KBR and former parent corporation Halliburton. KBR requested a private arbitration, and claims this is required by her employment contract. On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones’ federal lawsuit against KBR and several affiliates can be tried in open court. The provision covers any requirements that force workers to use arbitration to resolve claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and negligent hiring. Of course, as is usually the case, Congress left in the usual all purpose national security escape clause for a contractor. (b) Waiver.–The Secretary of the Army may waive the applicability of the limitation in subsection (a) to any contract if the Secretary certifies in writing to Congress that– (1) the waiver is necessary for the provision of essential services or critical operating facilities for operational missions; or (2) the work under such contract does not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Read the full article →

House Passes $636.3 Billion for Defense, Afghan War in Current Fiscal Year

December 16, 2009

By Tony Capaccio Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. House today approved spending $636.3 billion for defense in the current fiscal year, including $128.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation — a compromise between the House and the Senate — passed by a vote of 395 to 34. It’s the last of the 12 annual appropriations bills awaiting approval. The Senate may vote on it this week so it can be signed by President Barack Obama . About $65 billion of the war funding is for operations in Afghanistan. The Obama administration says it will need about $30 billion more to finance the surge of 30,000 more troops there that begins this month. That request is likely to come with the fiscal 2011 budget to be submitted in February. The budget is about $4 billion less than the White House requested, according to a press release from House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin. The new funding would bring to more than $1 trillion the money spent since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for the wars, veterans’ care, embassy protection and enhanced domestic security, according to the Congressional Research Service. That amount includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report. More Boeing C-17s Congress in October passed legislation that sets defense policy and authorizes funding in fiscal 2010. Money authorized in this measure can’t be spent unless it is in the appropriations bill, so the measure passed today is closely watched by contractors and investors. It includes $2.5 billion to buy 10 additional Boeing Co. C- 17 transports. The Pentagon didn’t request any. Boeing also benefited from $1.5 billion for 18 F/A-E/F Super Hornet fighters, including nine above the administration’s request. The added C-17 money is a victory for Chicago-based Boeing. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended April 6 that the C-17 program be terminated once Boeing delivers the last of 205 C-17s in late 2010. Boeing, the second-largest defense contractor, has said its plant in Long Beach, California, will shut down in 2011 without more orders. The budget also includes $465 million for the back-up engine of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter . The engine is built by Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. and London- based Rolls Royce Plc . The administration earlier threatened to veto the entire defense bill if it contained any money for the engine. 30 More Planes The bill for the overall Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 program fully funds the Pentagon’s $6.2 billion request for 30 additional aircraft, including 16 for the Marine Corps. The bill, in a victory for the Obama administration, does not require the Pentagon to continue the canceled Lockheed VH-71 presidential helicopter, which the White House and Pentagon have sought to terminate. Instead, the measure adds $44.8 million, for a total of $130 million, to bankroll efforts to recoup for future programs some of the research and development investment made in the chopper project. The bill also continues buying V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft built by Textron Inc. and Boeing, providing $2.7 billion for 35 aircraft as the Pentagon requested. For Related News and Information: U.S. Defense Budget Outlays: USBODEFN GP Defense stories: NI DEF BN Top government stories: TOP GOV Lockheed earnings: LMT US ERN BA earnings stories: BA US TCNI ERN

Read the full article →