The U.S. House of Representatives failed to approve a presidential request to increase the debt ceiling yesterday. Members rejected a motion to suspend the rules and proceed with that bill by a 318 to 97 vote (roll call). Every House Republican present voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). Nearly half the Democratic caucus also voted against yesterday’s motion, including Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer advised Democratic colleagues to reject what he described as a “political charade” aimed at producing fodder for campaign attack ads. Bruce Braley (IA-01) missed yesterday’s vote to attend a family funeral but released a statement saying he would have opposed raising the debt ceiling. I’ve posted his comments after the jump. Since last November’s election, Braley has consistently been talking like a deficit hawk.

The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling in mid-May. If Congress does not raise the limit by August 2, the federal government will not be able to pay all of its bills. Republican leaders are pushing for major domestic spending cuts as a condition for raising the borrowing limit. Naturally, austerity won’t apply to the military budget, and that’s fine with Boswell, Loebsack, Latham and King.

I believe Democrats are making a mistake by accepting Republican demands for strings attached to the debt ceiling hike. President Bill Clinton refused to make such negotiations part of a deal on raising the borrowing limit in 1995, saying he would not let Congressional Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

King asserted yesterday that repealing the federal health insurance reform law would “save the taxpayers $2.6 trillion” and would be a good start toward finding spending cuts to offset the president’s debt request. I’ve posted his full statement after the jump. At this writing I have not seen official comments on the debt ceiling from Loebsack, Boswell or Latham. If those become available, I will update this post.

UPDATE: Latham’s statements on the debt ceiling are now after the jump.

Catching up on news from last week, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) was the only Iowan in the U.S. House to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, which passed May 26 on a 322 to 96 vote (roll call). While Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03), Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Steve King (R, IA-05) all supported the bill’s final passage, their votes broke down differently on a number of important amendments the House considered Thursday.

Follow me after the jump for details on those votes and statements some of Iowa’s representatives released regarding this bill.

Hours before three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions were set to expire, Congress approved a bill extending the provisions until June 1, 2015. At the Open Congress blog, Donny Shaw summarized the legal points:

They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without being allows to inform the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track terrorists acting independently of any foreign power or organization.

Congress approved a three-month extension of those provisions in February. The bill that just passed was a compromise between House Republican and Senate Democratic leaders who disagreed on how far to extend the powers. A House bill would have extended the “lone wolf” authority permanently and the others for six and a half years. A Senate bill would have extended all three powers until the end of 2013.

Many senators have complained that the PATRIOT Act provisions in question undermine civil liberties, but few had the stomach to filibuster the bill when the Senate considered a motion to proceed on May 23. Iowans Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among the 74 senators voting for considering the PATRIOT Act extension (roll call). Just eight senators voted to filibuster this bill; another 18 senators did not vote on the motion to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a legislative maneuver to block various amendments seeking to reform the PATRIOT Act from receiving votes on the floor yesterday. The Senate voted on just two amendments, both submitted by Republican Rand Paul. Motions to table those amendments passed with overwhelming majorities, 91 to 4 and 85 to 10. Both Harkin and Grassley voted to table Paul’s amendments.

Harkin and Grassley disagreed on final passage of the bill, however, as they did when the last extension came to a vote in February. Grassley was among 72 senators voting for the four-year PATRIOT Act extension; Harkin was among the 23 voting against it (roll call).

The bill then went to the House for consideration. After some debate it passed on Thursday evening by a vote of 250 to 153. The roll call shows that Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) all voted yes, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no, with the majority of their caucus. Quite a few House members crossed party lines on this bill; 31 Republicans voted no, while 54 Democrats voted yes. Iowa’s House delegation split the same way in February when the three-month PATRIOT Act extension passed.

After the House voted to concur with the Senate amendment to the bill, the PATRIOT Act extension went to President Barack Obama’s desk. Because the president is in France, White House officials said Obama signed the bill before midnight using some kind of “autopen” machine. That’s the first I ever heard of that technology.

After the jump I’ve posted a memo from Grassley on the PATRIOT Act extension, which the Republican senator’s office sent to the media on Thursday evening. At this writing I have not seen press releases on this vote from Harkin, Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham or King.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post on the cynicism of Democrats who have been using the Republican talking points of yesteryear to browbeat colleagues into rubber-stamping the PATRIOT Act extension.

UPDATE: Added King’s press release on this vote after the jump.

Two new reports examine how well Iowa and other states are serving people who travel on foot or by bicycle. Yesterday Transportation for America released Dangerous by Design 2011: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Deaths. The report looks at factors contributing to 47,700 pedestrian deaths and more than 688,000 pedestrian injuries that happened in the U.S. from 2000 through 2009. Iowa didn’t emerge as one of the most dangerous states for pedestrians, but our state did conform to national trends showing ethnic minorities, lower-income residents, senior citizens and children are at greater risk of dying as pedestrians struck by vehicles.

Iowa placed sixth on the League of American Bicyclists 2011 Bicycle Friendly States rankings, but our state scored much better in some categories than others. Falling short in a couple of areas cost Iowa the “silver” or “bronze” recognition that several other states received.

Follow me after the jump for details from both reports and many other transportation links, including an update on passenger rail funding in Iowa.

Cedar Rapids business owner Steve Rathje announced yesterday that he is exploring a race against three-term Democratic Representative Bruce Braley in Iowa’s first Congressional district. Rathje noted that “only one quarter of the American people believe our country is headed in the right direction.” With high rates of unemployment and underemployment bringing the country to “a tipping point economically,” Rathje touted his experience in creating or preserving manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  The full text of his press release is after the jump.

If Rathje runs against Braley, it would be his third attempt to win a seat in Congress. He finished a close third in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2008, behind Christopher Reed and George Eichhorn. Rathje finished a distant second to Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the Republican primary for the second Congressional district in 2010.

The economy will be the central issue in the next election, and Rathje may be well-positioned to talk about job creation. Click here to view one of his television commercials from last year’s IA-02 race. In addition, Republicans would be wise to run a candidate from Linn County against Braley. The Cedar Rapids metro area is the largest population center in the new IA-01, and Braley has not represented Linn before. I posted Iowa’s new Congressional map after the jump.

I’m not convinced Rathje has a strong enough Linn County base to make this race competitive, though. He carried Linn in the 2008 Senate primary but finished behind Ottumwa-based ophthalmologist Miller-Meeks in his home county in 2010. In fact, some Linn County GOP movers and shakers recruited Rob Gettemy to the IA-02 primary last year because they weren’t satisfied with the declared field against Democrat Dave Loebsack.

Rathje may also be too conservative to give Braley a tough challenge in a district with a partisan voting index of D+5, especially in a presidential election year. The 20 counties in the new IA-01 voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a 58 to 40 percent margin in 2008, and for John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 53 to 46 percent margin in 2004.  

President Barack Obama announced minutes ago that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda movement, is dead following a “targeted” U.S. operation in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan. Speaking on national television late Sunday night, Obama said that shortly after taking office, he had instructed the CIA to make capturing Bin Laden a top priority. He was briefed on a possible lead to Bin Laden last August, and last week he decided that the U.S. had “enough intelligence to take action.” Today Obama authorized a “targeted operation,” in which Bin Laden was killed in a firefight. The U.S. has custody of his body, according to the president, and there were no American casualties. Obama emphasized that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, saying Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader and was a “mass murderer” of Muslims. Obama credited Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts with helping locate Bin Laden and said he had contacted Pakistani leaders, who agreed that the death of Bin Laden is good for both countries.

I will update this post as more news and Iowa reaction become available. Official statements from Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Bruce Braley (IA-01) are after the jump. Former President George W. Bush issued a statement congratulating Obama and the members of the U.S. intelligence community who made today’s events possible.

Meanwhile, use this thread to discuss the political implications of Bin Laden’s death. Al Qaeda isn’t going to disappear overnight, nor is the U.S. likely to end its military presence in Afghanistan sooner. I don’t know enough about U.S.-Pakistani relations to have a sense of the likely impact.

The UK newspaper Daily Mail published an article yesterday on how Bin Laden escaped elite British and American troops near Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001.

Comments about other U.S. military interventions are also welcome in this thread. Yesterday in Tripoli, a NATO air strike killed the youngest son and three grandchildren of Col. Moammar Qaddafi. The Libyan leader and his wife were reportedly not harmed. Some GOP senators have said regime change should become the explicit U.S. policy goal in Libya.

UPDATE: Likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement congratulating “our intelligence community, our military and the president.”

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) via Twitter: “On this night of historic news may God bless the victims of 9/11 and may God continue to bless the United States and freedom’s cause.” Kind of a strange tweet from Senator Chuck Grassley: “Pres bush was right when he said there aren’t enuf caves for Osama bin Laden to hide. That we wld get him. We got him”

THIRD UPDATE: The State Department has issued a worldwide travel alert for American citizens due “to the enhanced potential for anti-American violence given counterterrorism activity in Pakistan.”

FOURTH UPDATE: An administration official briefing journalists after Obama’s speech said the U.S. did not inform Pakistani authorities about this mission in advance. Official says four people were killed in raid in addition to Bin Laden: one of Bin Laden’s sons, two other male associates and a woman who allegedly was being used as a shield. The large compound where Bin Laden was found was reportedly built about five years ago, but U.S. officials do not know how long Bin Laden had been living there.

FIFTH UPDATE: Added Representative Dave Loebsack’s (IA-02) statement after the jump.

MONDAY UPDATE: The large compound where Bin Laden was reportedly killed is very close to a Pakistani military academy, raising “suspicions that Pakistan has played a double game, and perhaps even knowingly harbored the Qaeda leader.”

U.S. officials said they buried Bin Laden at sea last night in accordance with Islamic law, after flying his body to Afghanistan to confirm his identity. Burial at sea will prevent any gravesite from becoming a shrine for the Al Qaeda leader’s followers, but the quick disposal of the body may prompt questions about whether he is really dead.

Marc Ambinder reports on “The Secret Team That Killed bin Laden.”

After the jump I’ve added Latham’s full statement, comments from Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds and a interesting stream of comments from an Abbottabad resident who started tweeting after hearing a helicopter at 1 am Sunday (“a rare event”). Still no statements released by Senators Tom Harkin or Chuck Grassley or Representative Steve King (IA-05).

FINAL UPDATE: I never did find a press release from Steve King regarding Bin Laden’s reported death, but he seems to have given most of the credit to U.S. policies sanctioning torture of terror suspects. On May 2, King posted these two Twitter updates:

Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?

ObL “Sealed” into eternal damnation. Intel from KSM in Gitmo:-) “It feels like the entire country won the World Series,” Bill Hemmer-FOX.

I don’t know why King would be quick to assume torture led to Bin Laden’s capture. Interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t stop the trail for Bin Laden from growing cold. If this New York Times article “Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden” is accurate, Pakistani agents working for the CIA produced the key lead in the search for the Al Qaeda leader last summer.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction today on federally-funded research involving embryonic stem cells. Last August a District Court judge blocked federal government funding for such research, citing a 1996 law against funding “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed” or discarded. However, two of the three judges on the Appeals Court panel found that the injuntion would impose “certain and substantial” harm on stem cell researchers, and that plaintiffs in the case “have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits.” Click here (pdf file) for the full text of today’s ruling.

Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack all released statements today welcoming the decision as a victory for promising medical research. (The University of Iowa’s Carver College of Medicine was among facilities adversely affected by the district court ruling.) I’ve posted those statements after the jump and will update this post if and when other Iowa elected officials comment on the ruling.  

More Iowa voters disapprove than approve of Terry Branstad’s performance as governor, according to the latest statewide survey by Public Policy Polling. Of 1,109 Iowa voters polled between April 15 and April 17, just 41 percent approved of Branstad’s performance, while 45 percent disapproved and 14 percent were not sure. In a hypothetical rematch between Branstad and Governor Chet Culver, 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for Culver, while 46 percent would vote for Branstad. Full results and crosstabs are here (pdf). Branstad was in net positive territory with men (45 percent approve/43 percent disapprove), but women disapproved by a 48-37 margin. The sample doesn’t perfectly match the Iowa electorate; I noticed that 38 percent of respondents said they were Democrats, 33 percent said they were Republicans and 29 percent said they were independents. As of April 2011, Iowa has 1,955,217 active voters, of whom 647,060 are registered Democrats (33 percent), 610,006 are registered Republicans (31 percent), and 696,061 are no-party voters (36 percent).

PPP’s last Iowa poll, taken in January, found only 40 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Branstad, while 44 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

The new survey suggests a plurality of Iowa voters accept marriage equality. Asked “which best describes your opinion on gay marriage,” 35 percent of respondents said “gay couples should be allowed to legally marry,” 29 percent said “gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry,” 33 percent said “there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship,” and 2 percent were unsure. PPP’s January survey of Iowa voters asked the question differently and found 41 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, 52 percent said it should not be legal, and 8 percent were unsure.

PPP also recorded job approval numbers for Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and favorable/unfavorable numbers for Iowa’s five U.S. House representatives, Christie Vilsack and Tom Vilsack. Grassley and Harkin were both in net positive territory, but Grassley’s ratings (57/30) were much stronger than Harkin’s (47/38). It’s hard to read anything into the favorability ratings of the House members, since the opinion of voters statewide won’t necessarily reflect representatives’ standing in their own districts.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that to my knowledge, Chet Culver’s approval ratings didn’t fall to the low 40s until the second half of 2009, when he was dealing with a recession, state budget crunch and the film tax credit fiasco.

Sometime this week the Iowa Senate will consider Senate File 390, the nuclear energy rip-off bill Bleeding Heartland discussed here and here. MidAmerican Energy, which would benefit from the bill, has given generously to Iowa legislators from both parties and to political action committees. Constituents need to urge senators to reject this bill, which would hurt consumers, or at least table it. MidAmerican is in only the first year of a three-year feasibility study on nuclear power in Iowa. The Senate switchboard number is (515) 281-3371, or you can e-mail your senator. The Sierra Club Iowa chapter created an easy e-mail form here and posted a four-page pdf with more background information: “MidAmerican Energy Company’s Misguided Pursuit of Nuclear Power: removing barriers, providing incentives, and skirting the existing regulatory process.”

The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation is hiring a Land Projects Associate to “provide support for 40-50 active land protection projects.” Click the link for the job description and skill requirements. Applications are due May 2. The 125-acre Bernau Prairie in Kossuth County is one recent example of a completed INHF land protection project.  

The Women, Food and Agriculture Network is accepting nominations for the second annual “Sustainable Farming Mom of the Year” award. Click here to view the 2010 finalists and winner. Nominations are due by 5 pm central time on Friday, May 6.

Trees Forever is seeking Iowans age 25 or younger to serve on its Youth Advisory Council. Applicants may be in high school, college or out of school. The Trees Forever site has more information on the council’s role.

Details on lots of events coming up this week are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of another public event that should be mentioned here.

Citing “several sources familiar with her thinking,” Alex Isenstadt reports at Politico today that former First Lady Christie Vilsack is leaning toward challenging five-term incumbent Steve King in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. Isenstadt notes that Vilsack met with Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel last week in Washington. Israel reportedly promised Vilsack that he would support her if she runs against King, but that he would “unequivocally” back Representative Dave Loebsack if she runs against him in the Democratic primary to represent the second Congressional district.

Isenstadt’s piece doesn’t clarify whether Israel promised the DCCC’s financial backing for Vilsack in an IA-04 race. The DCCC officially supports all Democratic nominees for the U.S. House, but usually only spends money on behalf of a few dozen candidates. The 39 counties in the new fourth district (map after the jump) are in five different media markets, although most of the population could be reached by advertising in just Des Moines, Sioux City and Mason City.

Last week the Des Moines rumor mill suggested Vilsack had been calling state legislators in the second district. According to Isenstadt, she has discussed a possible race against King with some Democrats in IA-04:

Jan Bauer, chairwoman of the Story County Democratic Party in Ames, said she spoke with the former first lady several weeks ago and that Vilsack raised the possibility of challenging the conservative congressman.

“I’d be surprised if she doesn’t do it,” Bauer said in an interview.

A campaign in IA-04 would be an uphill climb for any Democrat, although Vilsack would start the race with unparalleled name recognition and the capacity to raise significant funds. King has never been a major-league fundraiser; his latest FEC filing indicated that he had $142,610.38 in his campaign account as of March 31.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. I think a campaign in IA-02 would give Vilsack her best chance of winning a seat in Congress and holding that seat for more than two years. On the other hand, I would enjoy seeing a serious and well-funded challenge to Iowa’s most embarrassing politician of my lifetime.

Final note on IA-02: Loebsack’s latest FEC filing showed $121,874.47 cash on hand as of March 31. Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin headlined a fundraiser for Loebsack in Iowa City over the weekend. Next month, Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Senator Tom Harkin are hosting a fundraiser for Loebsack in Scott County, while Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) plans to hold a fundraiser for Loebsack in Jasper County.

UPDATE: U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told Democratic state senators on Monday that if his wife runs for Congress, “it will be a holy war.” That suggests she is leaning toward challenging King, rather than forcing a Democratic primary in IA-02.

SECOND UPDATE: From Bret Hayworth’s blog on April 19:

This morning, Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn was traveling through Northwest Iowa to talk politics, including making a stop to talk with me at the office. He was raring to talk about the possibility of a King-Vilsack matchup.

“She can try and take Steve King on, but I think that will be a great opportunity for Republicans to mobilize. A presidential year, having  a very highlighted race in Northwest Iowa, is a guarantee that we are going to be able to turn out every Republican and conservative vote that would benefit a presidential candidate, all the way down the ticket,” Strawn said.

“Not only does Mrs. Vilsack not have any natural connection whatsoever to Northwest and north central Iowa, but culturally is out of step. She’s someone that has an affiliation with some organizations that would certainly inflame a lot of the pro-life voters in this area… Congressman King has a national following as well, and he would have the ability to call in all sorts of resources to aid the fight.”

THIRD UPDATE: Matt Paul, a former staffer for Governor Tom Vilsack, told the Des Moines Register on April 19,

“I can confirm that Christie and Tom Vilsack have completed a transaction and are moving to Ames,” said Matt Paul, a Democratic strategist who was a staffer for Tom Vilsack when he was governor. […]

Paul declined to offer further details about Christie Vilsack’s political intentions, but said: “There will be an announcement very soon.”

FOURTH UPDATE: A rare moment of agreement between Governor Terry Branstad and me:

“Well, she’s never lived in northwest Iowa and it’s a heavily Republican area,” Branstad said this morning. […]

“I think in southeast Iowa she would be a pretty formidable candidate where she grew up,” Branstad said. “I think in northwest Iowa she’d be a fish out of water.”

Remember when Republicans were saying that Washington was going to pull the plug on grandma? Little did we know, they were on to something.

The newly released Republican budget does indeed threaten grandma – by dismantling Medicare and ending the guaranteed health care that so many seniors' lives depend on.

If House Republicans and Budget Chairman Paul Ryan get their way, they would privatize Medicare – getting rid of the government guarantee that makes the program accessible for all elderly Americans. Under this “brave” and “courageous” Republican plan, seniors would get a voucher to purchase insurance on the private market. This may sound like a reasonable plan until you consider that privatizing Medicare would cost seniors significantly more, almost doubling their out-of-pocket costs to more than $12,000 a year and leaving many unable to afford health care at all.

The federal government is no longer in danger of shutting down. Today Congress approved a bill to fund operations through fiscal year 2011, which ends on September 30. In the House of Representatives, the bill passed by 260 votes to 167 (roll call). The bill needed bipartisan support, because only 179 House Republicans voted yes, including Iowa’s Tom Latham (IA-04). Steve King (IA-05) was among the 59 Republicans who voted against; that’s about one-fourth of the House GOP caucus. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among the 81 House Democrats who voted for the budget bill; Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against it.

After the bill passed, the House voted for two “corrections” to the bill, which passed on nearly party-line votes (roll calls here and here). One of those resolutions would defund the 2010 health care reform measure, the Affordable Care Act. The other would eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Latham and King voted for both “corrections,” while Boswell, Loebsack and Braley voted against them.

The Senate quickly took up the spending bill. The House measure to defund health care reform went down first; all 47 Republican senators voted yes, but all 53 senators who caucus with Democrats voted no. Then senators rejected the measure to defund Planned Parenthood. On that resolution, 42 Republicans, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted yes, while a few GOP moderates and the whole Democratic caucus, including Tom Harkin, voted no. The Senate then voted 81 to 19 to pass the spending bill. Most of the no votes were Republicans. Both Grassley and Harkin voted for the compromise to fund the government through the current fiscal year.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from some members of the Iowa delegation. I will update those as more become available. I noticed that Leonard Boswell did not issue a statement on his vote today; he also didn’t send out a press release Friday night about voting for the stopgap one-week spending measure. King’s press release today glossed over his vote against the budget deal; instead, he emphasized the House vote on language to block funding for “Obamacare.”

There’s some confusion about how much federal spending will be cut in the current fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “while the agreement cuts almost $40 billion in budget authority, the near-term reduction in the federal deficit is only about $352 million.” Philip Rucker explained some of the accounting gimmicks in this Washington Post article. Many of the cuts will hurt, however.

Of the $38 billion in overall reductions in the budget that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year, about $20 billion would come from domestic discretionary programs, while $17.8 billion would be cut from mandatory programs. […]

Although the pain would be felt across virtually the entire government – the deal includes a $1 billion across-the-board cut shared among all non-defense agencies – Republicans were able to focus the sharpest cuts on areas they have long targeted. The Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments, which represent about 28 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, face as much as a combined $19.8 billion, or 52 percent, of the total reductions in the plan.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and “clean and drinking water state revolving funds” ($997 million cut from last year).

Democrats were able to beat back the most severe cuts originally proposed by House Republicans and protect funding for some cherished programs, such as Head Start, AmeriCorps and the implementation of the new health-care and food safety laws.

This pdf file lists the program cuts, grouped by department. There are basically no Defense Department cuts, although spending has been reduced on military construction and a few veterans’ programs. In other areas of domestic spending, there are too many ill-advised cuts to list in this post. Some terms in this deal are merely short-sighted: reducing spending on various literacy and conservation programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and a big cut to high-speed rail projects. Other provisions are immoral, like slashing spending for community health care centers and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program’s contingency fund. It depresses me that a Democratic president and Senate majority leader agreed to make the largest USDA spending reduction apply to the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.

The bill also contains provisions that have nothing to do with federal expenditures. For instance, it removes gray wolves from the endangered species list in Montana so that farmers and ranchers can shoot them.

At the end of this post I’ve added reaction from the Iowa Congressional delegation to President Barack Obama’s April 13 speech on bringing down the national debt. I didn’t watch the speech, but I read through the full text, as prepared. It contained some nice words for liberals and some Republican-bashing. The trouble is, based on the president’s handling of budget negotiations in the past few months, I believe Obama will end up agreeing to almost all the spending and entitlement cuts Republicans want. Despite his promises yesterday, I very much doubt he will block a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income levels.

At literally the eleventh hour Friday night, President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders struck a deal to keep the federal government running through the end of the 2011 fiscal year. The deal cuts a further $38 billion in spending, bringing total spending to a figure $78 billion below Obama’s original 2011 budget request. (That request was never enacted; the federal government has been running on a series of continuing resolutions since October 1.) The Hill reported last night,

Because it will take several days to translate the agreement into a legislative draft, both chambers passed a stopgap to keep the government funded until the middle of next week. The short-term measure would cut $2 billion from the budget […]

The deal cuts a total of $37.7 billion from current spending levels over the next six months. Of that total, $17.8 billion came from mandatory spending programs, including $2.5 billion in House transportation spending, according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with the deal.

Democrats knocked off most of the controversial policy riders that House Republicans had included in H.R. 1, the package of spending cuts that passed in February.

Republicans, however, won the inclusion of a rider to expand the District of Columbia’s school voucher program and to authorize a Government Accountability Office study of a financial oversight board established by the Wall Street reform bill.

Most significantly, Democrats won the disagreement over funding that included Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services.

The Senate approved the short-term spending bill on a voice vote last night. I posted a statement issued by Senator Tom Harkin after the jump.

The House approved the bill a few minutes after midnight on a 348 to 70 vote (roll call). Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted yes. Steve King (IA-05) was among 28 Republicans to vote no. I’ve posted Loebsack’s statement after the jump and will add comments from other Iowans in the House when I see them.

Although most of the House Democratic caucus voted to keep the government running, this deal is a huge victory for House Republicans, especially Speaker John Boehner. He gave up the Planned Parenthood and EPA riders, but only after getting much deeper spending cuts, almost all from non-defense domestic programs. Reuters listed the cuts in the short-term spending bill. Most of the money comes out of high-speed rail, which is an idiotic program to cut from a job creation perspective. The deal covering the remainder of the fiscal year includes only about $3 billion in defense spending cuts, compared to $17.8 billion from benefit programs.

Obama bragged in his weekly radio address today, “Cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history.” Yet again, he’s validating Republican ideology, rhetoric and tactics on the budget. Look for House Republicans to insist on even deeper cuts in domestic spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. I dread thinking about what will be in the 2012 budget bills. Republicans will make sure all the “shared sacrifice” comes from people who depend on government benefits.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget in this thread. I enjoyed Philip Rucker’s feature on the top negotiators for Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

A pathetically small crowd of about a dozen people turned up for the final public hearings on the first redistricting plan for Iowa last night. As was the case at the previous hearings, few people stood up to criticize the plan, and the complaints raised were not cohesive.

The low turnout and lack of consistent talking points suggest that neither political party mobilized supporters to pack these hearings. That in turn suggests neither Democratic nor Republican leaders believe this map clearly puts them at a disadvantage. More details about the hearings and the next steps in the redistricting process are after the jump.  

A federal government shutdown appears imminent, with Republicans and Democrats still far from a deal and the last continuing resolution on fiscal year 2011 spending set to expire at the end of April 8. Trying to buy more negotiating time, House Republicans approved a new continuing resolution today that funds most of the federal government for just one week but the Department of Defense through the end of September (the remainder of the fiscal year). The bill passed on a 247 to 181 vote, mostly along party lines, despite a rare veto threat from President Barack Obama earlier today. The roll call shows that Steve King (IA-05) was one of only six Republicans to vote no on this bill, and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among only 15 Democrats to vote yes. Tom Latham (IA-04) voted yes, along with most of the GOP caucus. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no, like most of the Democrats.

House and Senate leaders have been negotiating at the White House today and are scheduled to continue this evening, but prospects for a budget deal don’t look good. Both sides are “already spinning a shutdown.” The main sticking point seems to be not the dollar figure for cuts to the current-year budget, but a number of “riders” demanded by House Republicans, which are unacceptable to Democrats. Some of the most contentious ones would defund health care reform, Planned Parenthood and forbid the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.

After the jump I’ve posted recent statements from Braley, Loebsack, and Latham regarding the federal budget negotiations and the continuing resolution passed today. Braley and Loebsack both denounced Washington political “games” and pointed out how thousands of Iowans would be affected by a shutdown. Latham said, “No one wants a government shutdown, and I’m doing everything I can to keep that from happening while protecting our troops […] However, we can’t continue to spend money we don’t have, and any budget approved by Congress must contain serious spending cuts.” Earlier today on the House floor, Latham stuck to the GOP script on the “troop funding bill”. I’ll update the post as more reaction becomes available.

Senator Tom Harkin has blamed Republican intransigence for the potential shutdown in many media interviews this week. Speaking on MSNBC today, he said that even in 1995 and 1996 he’d never seen anything like the current attitude among some Republicans who won’t compromise. Radio Iowa quoted Harkin as saying, “It is flabbergasting, that actually people are walking around here saying ‘shut the government down.’ I gotta ask sometimes, where’s their patriotism, where is their patriotism?” Speaking to reporters yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley expressed frustration about Senate Republicans being excluded from the direct negotiations at the White House. He still sounds optimistic a shutdown can be avoided, though.

If Friday night’s deadline passes with no agreement, some government services would continue, including various law enforcement activities, air traffic control, the U.S. Postal Service, National Weather Service monitoring, and payment of food stamps and Social Security checks. However, approximately 800,000 federal employees would be furloughed, and many other Americans would be affected by cutbacks in government services. For instance, tax refunds would be delayed, national parks and forests would be closed, and neither the Federal Housing Administration nor the Small Business Administration would be able to process or approve new loans. Federal courts can continue to operate for two weeks, but if a shutdown lasts longer than that, “the federal court system faces serious disruption.” Over at Iowa Independent, Tyler Kingkade looked at how a federal government shutdown would affect Pell grants and the Head Start program in Iowa.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget impasse in this thread. I’m worried that the final deal will include too many spending cuts aimed at vulnerable people, and will be a drag on the economy as a whole. Tens of billions of dollars in cuts would not be on the table now if the Democratic-controlled Congress had completed work on the 2011 budget on time last year.

UPDATE: King explained his vote to IowaPolitics.com:

“I am on a singular mission to undo Obamacare,” King said. “I took the position that I’m going to hold my ground and I’m going to vote ‘no’ to any bill that does not cut off funding to Obamacare. When I give my word, I keep it. I see leadership moving away from using it as a lever. That’s a point of greater frustration.”

King also said, “I think the shutdown at this point is inevitable […] Then it becomes a stare down: who will blink.” Unfortunately, I think we can guess that President Obama will blink.

SECOND UPDATE: Jamie Dupree on the broken federal budget process: both parties have failed to approve budget bills on time during the last five election years.

Eli Lehrer has a post up on lobbyist influence over the “riders”: “the much longer list of environment-related riders looks like it was written almost entirely by specific industry lobbyists who have good relationships with certain members of Congress. Although there are some very broad efforts that would end virtually every climate-change or carbon-regulation program in the government, most of the environmental efforts are very narrow and, one assumes, serve a very few interests.”

THIRD UPDATE: Click here to listen to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack discuss the impact a shutdown would have on USDA operations.

On April 8 Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal vowed that legislators will settle their parties’ differences over the state budget in the coming weeks through “healthy dialogue,” with no chance of an impasse like what’s occurring in Washington.

Also on April 8, Bruce Braley’s office sent reporters a memo prepared by chief of staff John Davis about the impact a government shutdown would have on Iowa families and the Iowa economy. Among other things, the memo asserts that nearly 60 Iowa small businesses would not have SBA loans approved, about half of Iowa Guard personnel would not be paid, veterans would see delays in various benefits and support services, Farm Service Agency loans would be delayed, as would export licenses and applications for Social Security cards. Also, the memo warns, “Over 3000 employees of Rock Island Arsenal could be out of work,” based on what happened during the 1995 government shutdown.  

Minutes ago the Legislative Services Agency released a new map of Iowa political boundaries, containing four Congressional districts, 50 state Senate districts and 100 state House districts. I don’t see the map on the state legislature’s official site yet but will update this post as more information becomes available today.

This thread is for any comments related to Iowa redistricting. I posted a timeline of upcoming events in the process after the jump.

I liked one veteran Republican lawmaker’s advice:

If the map is good to you, stay quiet, advises Rep. Stewart Iverson, R-Clarion, who was Senate majority during redistricting leader 10 years ago. If it’s not, stay quieter.

On the other hand, Kathie Obradovich’s counsel to legislators in today’s column baffled me:

Redistricting will be painful. Do it fast. [….] Hurt feelings and simmering resentment over redistricting can pollute the caucus and spill over into discussion of other bills. Best to get it over with as soon as humanly possible.

We’re talking about a map that will affect Iowa elections for a decade. If the Legislative Services Agency doesn’t produce a map that seems fair to both parties the first time, have them do it again. There is no perfect redistricting plan, but improving a mediocre map is more important than wrapping things up fast at the capitol.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register reports that the map throws Republican Representatives Tom Latham and Steve King together in the new fourth Congressional district. Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack are both in the new first district. Representative Leonard Boswell has the third district to himself, and the second district (which conveniently contains Christie Vilsack’s home town of Mount Pleasant) is open. Presumably Loebsack would move to the second district if this map were accepted.

Iowa Public Radio’s Jeneane Beck tweets, “If new map approved – 14 State Senate districts with more than one incumbent and seven with no incumbent.” In that case, I doubt this map will be approved.

SECOND UPDATE: The maps are now up on the legislature’s website, along with the proposed redistricting plan report.

THIRD UPDATE: Although Leonard Boswell has the new IA-03 to himself, it’s not a good map for him, with the district stretching to the south and west of Polk County. That reminds me of the IA-04 map from the 1990s, which helped bury Neal Smith.

I suspect Iowa House Republicans won’t be happy to see nine new districts where GOP incumbents would face each other. Three incumbents–Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, Stew Iverson and Henry Rayhons–all reside in the new House district 8. Only three House districts are home to more than one Democratic incumbent. The new district 13 in Sioux City would pit first-term Republican Jeremy Taylor against first-term Democrat Chris Hall.

FOURTH UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added some highlights from the Legislative Services Agency’s report. The districts don’t look very compact to me, but they are fairly close in population.

IA-01 has 761,548 people, -41 from ideal

IA-02 has 761,624 people, +35 from ideal

IA-03 has 761,612 people, +23 from ideal

IA-04 has 761,571 people, -18 from ideal

I also posted reaction comments from Representatives Braley and Boswell, Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky.

You can find the maps for individual Iowa House and Senate districts here and here. As a Windsor Heights Democrat, I don’t like the looks of my new House district 43 or Senate district 22.

FIFTH UPDATE: Swing State Project helpfully provides the presidential results for each new Congressional district.

IA-01 went 58 percent Obama, 40.1 percent McCain in 2008, and 53.1 percent Kerry, 46.1 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-02 went 56.6 percent Obama, 41.2 percent McCain in 2008, and 52.5 percent Kerry, 46.5 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-03 went 51.9 percent Obama, 45.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 47.1 percent Kerry, 52.1 percent Bush in 2004.

IA-04 went 48.1 percent Obama, 49.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 44.2 percent Kerry, 55.0 percent Bush in 2004.

FINAL UPDATE: Added Loebsack’s statement after the jump, which makes clear he would move into IA-02 if this map is adopted.

Bleeding Heartland will continue to cover the implications of the first redistricting plan next week. I’ll be curious to see what arguments people make at the public hearings, aside from complaints about communities of interest being divided. Not only are Linn and Johnson counties separated, but the Des Moines metro area is split among three districts.

President Barack Obama addressed the nation tonight regarding our nine-day-old military intervention in Libya. He explained why the U.S. and its allies in the United Nations Security Council authorized a no-fly zone and why it was not in “our national interest” to let Colonel Moammar Gaddafi continue killing his country’s people. Obama emphasized that “in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners.” It took the international community more than a year to settle on a similar sequence of actions to curtail violence in Bosnia during the 1990s.  

Obama promised to work with allies to assist the people of Libya and support a political transition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to London tomorrow to “meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. ”

Obama also made clear that the U.S. will not try to “overthrow Gaddafi by force” with troops on the ground, because we cannot afford to repeat our experience in Iraq:

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. […]

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

The full text of Obama’s remarks, as prepared, are at the end of this post.

Reacting to the president’s speech, Senator Chuck Grassley said he “was an early advocate of a no-fly zone,” which has helped the Libyan opposition make progress “despite the President’s delay in offering this help [….].” Grassley added that Obama hasn’t made clear how long our mission in Libya will last, and said Congress should discuss our commitment there.

Senator Tom Harkin said that given Gaddafi’s “humanitarian atrocities, I was supportive of the initial UN-backed military strikes.  But with the U.S. ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have concerns about an open-ended engagement in Libya.” He added, “while there is merit in handing over operations to NATO, ultimately, a political solution is needed to end the conflict in Libya.”

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) released a statement expressing concern “that tonight we didn’t get a clear and accurate accounting from the President on how much this conflict in Libya is going to cost American taxpayers. We’ve got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and Americans deserve to hear from our President what this third conflict is going to cost us. I look forward to meeting with Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton later this week and hearing their explanation of the costs of this operation and their strategy for moving forward in Libya.” Last week Braley asked Obama to provide a full cost accounting for our latest military mission. He was the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on our new involvement in Libya.

The complete statements from Grassley, Harkin and Braley are after the jump. I will update this post later if Iowa’s other members of Congress comment on the president’s speech.

UPDATE: After returning from a weekend trip to Afghanistan, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) spoke to reporters on March 28 (before Obama’s speech):

Noting the U.S. still has troops in Iraq, Loebsack said involvement in Libya raises concerns about overextending the military.

However, he said, Petraeus told the congressman he doesn’t expect enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya “to have any major effect on what we’re doing in Afghanistan.”

“Our troops (in Afghanistan) are doing their mission,” he said. “They have the resources they need to do their mission. That’s critical.”

As of March 29, I still have not seen any reaction to Obama’s speech from Loebsack or Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve KIng (IA-05).

SECOND UPDATE: Further comments from Loebsack, Boswell and Latham are now below.

Geraldine Ferraro died today at age 75, after battling multiple myeloma for 13 years, far longer than she was expected to survive when diagnosed. She became the first woman named to a major-party national ticket in the U.S. when Walter Mondale chose her as his running mate in 1984. Ferraro acknowledged that she would not have been Mondale’s choice for vice president had she been a man. The Democratic nominee was trailing President Ronald Reagan badly in the polls and needed something to shake up the campaign. Ferraro was supposed to turn the emerging “gender gap” in American politics to the Democrats’ favor.

I remember discounting the rumors that a woman might be nominated for vice president. The Reagan years had rapidly developed my cynicism. It was a big deal just to have a woman on the “short list,” so I figured that talking Ferraro was going to be the Mondale camp’s gesture toward women, and we’d have to wait another cycle or two to see a woman on a ticket. But after watching Ferraro’s speech at the national convention, this liberal teenage girl was so excited and inspired that I briefly forgot what I knew about Mondale having no chance to be elected.

Journalists covering the campaign picked Ferraro apart; you can read the gory details in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times obituaries. She wasn’t very experienced in terms of media relations, and she was a strong woman, so she was an easy target. One manufactured controversy after another dominated stories about her campaign, and I remember lots of speculation about her Italian-American husband’s possible mob ties. Meanwhile, media provided scant coverage when Reagan’s Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan was indicted in September 1984, six weeks before the presidential election. You’d think the first-ever indictment of a sitting cabinet secretary would be a bigger news story than some of the garbage being thrown at Ferraro, but you would be wrong. (Donovan was later acquitted.)

Bleeding Heartland readers too young to remember the 1984 campaign may know of Ferraro mainly because in March 2008, she asserted that Barack Obama’s race gave him an advantage in the presidential primaries against Hillary Clinton: “Sexism is a bigger problem [than racism in the United States] […] It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.” The ensuing furor prompted Ferraro to resign from Clinton’s presidential campaign fundraising committee, though she stood by her remarks. At the time, I felt many Obama supporters blew Ferraro’s comments way out of proportion. Her perspective was shaped by decades of personal experience with sexism, like law school professors who felt she had taken “a man’s rightful place.”

Representative Bruce Braley said in a statement today, “Geraldine Ferraro was a great leader and a remarkable woman. She not only made history, she inspired generations of women to do the same. She will be greatly missed, but her influence will live on.”  I will update this post with further Iowa reaction to Ferraro’s passing.

Share your own memories of Ferraro and her political career in this thread.

UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley posted to Twitter, “Geraldine Ferraro was an xtraordinary M of Cong. A person easy get along w. True abt my working w her”

Ferraro’s father died when she was eight years old. Here’s a reflection she wrote on how losing a parent so young affected her life.

LATE UPDATE: Joan Walsh’s reflection on Ferraro’s life and career is worth reading.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has asked President Barack Obama to disclose all costs associated with the current U.S. military intervention in Libya. From Braley’s March 24 press release:

“Just as we’re struggling to cut federal spending and bring down our national deficit, we’re also faced with the challenge of managing two military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we’re going to be involved in Libya, we must know how much a third military conflict will cost us,” said Rep. Braley. “I know I’m not the only who’s asking these questions – Speaker Boehner, for one, has also expressed his concerns – and I think it’s important that the President give us and all American taxpayers an accurate answer on this issue. I will always stand with people fighting for freedom and democracy around the world, and I know both President Obama and Speaker Boehner would too. But America has to address many important challenges right here at home – with spending as the most critical one. And before we spend any money abroad, I want to know how much it’s going to cost us.”

The full text of Braley’s letter to President Obama is after the jump.

Braley is right to ask substantive questions about the U.S. operation in Libya. I have been surprised by the Iowa delegation’s muted reaction to our latest military intervention, given that Obama launched this operation without Congressional authorization. To my knowledge, Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and Representatives Dave Loebsack, Leonard Boswell, Tom Latham and Steve King have not issued any official statement regarding “Operation Odyssey Dawn.”

Braley’s letter is consistent with his increased focus on fighting the deficit since last November’s election. As I’ve written before, I disagree with austerity movement types who make the deficit out to be our country’s biggest threat. Our national strength depends more on fixing other problems: reducing unemployment, reorienting our energy policy and fixing the still-broken health care system, to name a few. Getting the economy moving would do more to shrink the budget gap than the non-defense discretionary spending cuts deficit hawks demand.

I give Braley credit for acknowledging that the U.S. doesn’t have unlimited free money to blow on wars around the globe. The same can’t be said for many members of Congress who claim to care about excessive government spending.

UPDATE: Braley issued this statement on March 25:

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement after White House spokesperson Jay Carney was asked about Rep. Braley’s letter calling for an accounting of the Libyan conflict. According to USA Today, Carney replied to reporters, “there are contingency funds…for this kind of thing.” Today Rep. Braley said:

“Yesterday I asked for accountability on the question of how much this conflict is costing us, and I have yet to see a clear response from the White House. The fact that funds for contingency military operations exist doesn’t answer the question of how much we’re spending, and will continue to spend, in Libya. I’m not the only one asking these questions – the American people are demanding answers too. And the President must give Congress and all taxpayers an accurate answer.”

Yesterday, Rep. Braley sent a letter to President Obama asking for a full accounting of the Libyan conflict and the costs to taxpayers. Speaker Boehner sent a similar letter to the President. Rep. Braley has previously called for a full accounting of the human and financial costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. Senate approved a three-week continuing resolution on current-year federal spending yesterday, one day before the last continuing resolution was set to expire. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both supported the measure, which passed on an 87 to 13 vote (roll call). Harkin was one of only nine senators to vote against the last temporary budget fix two weeks ago.

According to Josiah Ryan’s report for The Hill,

The new measure will keep the government funded through April 8. If the two sides do not reach a deal by then, the government would shut down. […]

The bill would reduce spending this year by $6 billion. Both the Obama administration and Senate Democrats supported many of the cuts.

The measure approved Thursday includes $2.1 billion in rescissions of funds that have not been used; $2.5 billion in earmark terminations and  $1.1 billion to financial services/general government programs.

This includes $276 million for a fund to fight flu pandemics; $225 million in funding for community service employment for older Americans; and $200 million in funding for Internet and technology projects.

In other Congressional news, the House of Representatives voted yesterday to “permanently prohibit direct federal funding to [National Public Radio], ban public radio stations from using federal funds to pay their NPR dues and prevent those stations from using federal dollars to buy programming.” The 228 to 192 vote went mostly on party lines. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) both voted yes, while all Democrats present voted no, including Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). In a speech to the House floor,

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) compared to the current move to strip NPR of federal funding to previous battles to strip ACORN and Planned Parenthood of the same, both of which were sparked by sting videos by conservative activists.

“Of all of the data that we’ve seen, we still had not absorbed the culture of NPR until we saw the video of that dinner,” Rep. King said.

That “sting video” was heavily edited to take certain comments out of context.

As far as I know, Braley was the only member of the Iowa delegation to issue a statement on the NPR funding vote. I’ve posted that after the jump. Both the White House and Democrats who have a majority in the U.S. Senate oppose defunding NPR.

UPDATE: I’ve added a March 18 e-mail blast from Loebsack after the jump.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has introduced a bipartisan bill to put more people “with agricultural backgrounds” on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board. The full press release from Braley’s office is after the jump. Excerpt:

“Our farmers must have a voice when it comes to their life’s work,” said Congressman Braley. “This bill will give them a chance to bring some common sense to EPA regulations that have an effect on them every single day.”

The EPA Science Advisory Board provides analysis and recommendations for EPA regulations and other technical matters that often impact agriculture. Farmers have become increasingly concerned that EPA decisions are creating unnecessary and undue economic hardship. For example, proposals to regulate dust on farms have raised concerns. Braley recently voted to protect Iowa farms from these burdensome federal dust regulations.

I don’t know the details on the proposed dust rules. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has spoken with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson about the issue and has urged farmers not to worry about excessive regulation of dust clouds on farms.

From where I’m sitting, it’s a bad time for Congress to pick on the EPA Science Advisory Board. While Braley implies EPA regulations are lacking in “common sense,” I see an agency that has recently backed off from protecting public health in order to appease certain industries and political opponents.

Here in Iowa, the last thing we need is another politician arguing that environmental regulations threaten farmers. Iowans with agricultural backgrounds have long been well represented on environmental regulatory and advisory bodies in this state. Now our Republican governor has handed over the state Environmental Protection Commission to agribusiness advocates and may move all water quality and monitoring programs to the agriculture department, something that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the country. Braley doesn’t seem too aware of the relationship between agricultural pollution and Iowa’s water quality problems; last year he supported a proposed expansion of a Scott County hog confinement despite evidence that the operator had previously violated manure discharge rules.

Braley’s press release names several agricultural groups supporting his new legislation. Perhaps this bill will help bolster his position as a voice for Iowa farmers. He lost most of the rural counties in his district in the 2010 election (pdf), and Iowa’s forthcoming four-district map will add more rural counties to the first Congressional district.

Braley has long championed the biofuels industry. He received the Iowa Corn Growers Association endorsement last year and won praise from the Renewable Fuels Association last month for “raising awareness about the anti-ethanol, anti-fuel choice agenda of some members of Congress.” (Braley clashed with Republican Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) over an amendment to confirm the EPA’s power to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard.) However, the Iowa Farm Bureau didn’t endorse a candidate in IA-01 last year. Although the American Farm Bureau supports Braley’s new bill on the EPA Science Advisory Board, I doubt the Iowa Farm Bureau would back him in 2012, especially if redistricting pits him against Latham. Braley voted for the 2009 climate change bill that the Farm Bureau strongly opposed and helped to bury in the Senate.

Incidentally, Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among the House Agriculture Committee Democrats who lobbied successfully to weaken the climate change bill’s impact on agriculture. I don’t recall Braley getting involved in that fight.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: On March 16 Braley and Boswell jointly introduced an amendment to preserve federal funding for “local governments and organizations to purchase and renovate foreclosed properties for resale in rural communities.” The press release on that amendment is after the jump.

The House of Representatives approved a three-week continuing resolution on current-year spending today by a vote of 271 to 158 (roll call). If the Senate does not approve the bill by Friday, the federal government will shut down. The Iowa delegation split the same way as two weeks ago, when the House approved the last continuing resolution. Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for the spending bill. Two weeks ago Steve King (IA-05) was among only six House Republicans to vote against the continuing resolution. Today he had much more company; 54 House Republicans voted against the bill backed by their leaders. The measure would have failed without Democratic support.

That support is eroding as well. Two weeks ago, yes votes outnumbered noes in the House Democratic caucus, but today a majority of House Democrats voted against the continuing resolution. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), has said he will not support another continuing resolution after this one. If House and Senate leaders don’t reach a comprehensive agreement on fiscal 2011 spending during the next three weeks, it may become more difficult to avoid a shutdown.

King told ABC News this week he isn’t worried about that outcome:

Rep. Steve King is lobbying his colleagues to take their fight against President Obama’s health care law to a new level: He wants to cut off funding for the law as a condition for keeping other government funds in place.

“We have a leverage point, and it is the funding for the government for the balance of the fiscal year 2011,” King, R-Iowa, told us today on ABC’s “Top Line.” “This is the place to pitch the fight.”

If such a stance brings about a partial government shutdown, it would be Democrats’ fault, King said: “If we shut off the funding to implement Obamacare and the Senate or the president refuses to go along with it, that is their decision, not ours.”

Still, King argued, a shutdown might not be a bad result.

“If essential services keep going, no, it wouldn’t be. And I think that we’d be able to keep essential services going on. You know, the wedge issue is this: Is the president — would he think that his signature issue is more important to him than all the functions of government? That’s the question. And in the end, will American people stand with us, or will they stand with Obamacare?”

In other Congressional news, King is the only Iowan among 81 House Republicans cosponsoring a concurrent resolution that “condemns the Obama administration’s direction that the Department of Justice should discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act; and demands that the Department of Justice continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in all instances.” King has vowed to seek a funding reduction for the DOJ since President Barack Obama instructed the department not to defend Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court.

After the jump I’ve posted Braley’s statement on today’s vote. I will add press releases from the other Iowans in the House if and when I see them.

UPDATE: I see King has introduced a federal official English bill again: “A common language is the most powerful unifying force known throughout history, […] We need to encourage assimilation of all legal immigrants in each generation. A nation divided by language cannot pull together as effectively as a people.” As a state senator, King was the leading advocate of Iowa’s official English bill, which Governor Tom Vilsack signed in 2002. King later sued successfully to stop the Secretary of State’s office from providing voter registration information in languages other than English.

I’ll be interested to see whether the House Republican leadership lets King’s new bill go forward, or whether the same concerns that cost King a subcommittee chairmanship this year sink his efforts to require the federal government to conduct most services in English.

SECOND UPDATE: King’s statement is now after the jump. Politifact provides more context on the $105 billion figure King mentions here.

What did you buy this week? Now – how many of those items were made in America? Not many, I bet. Because even if we wanted to, most of us would be hard-pressed to buy only American-made products.

While U.S. jobs are steadily shipped overseas, the tidal wave of foreign-made goods in our stores and in our homes has become as regular as the tide. And that's a big problem for our country.

Representative Leonard Boswell is the only Iowan on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new list of 15 “Frontline” House incumbents. Josh Kraushaar notes,

The Frontline program has always been a critical part of the House Democrats’ campaign infrastructure, supporting and expanding their fundraising and outreach operations and offering a signal to the lobbying community who’s the most at risk.

Boswell’s been in the Frontline program every election this past decade. With the exception of 2008, he’s always been a target for Iowa Republicans and/or the National Republican Congressional Committee.

In 2012, Boswell may face Christie Vilsack or other Democratic primary challengers. The DCCC appears to be signaling that they will support him in a primary as well as in a general election.

More incumbents will be added to the Frontline program as new maps are drawn across the country and candidate recruitment takes shape. For now, the DCCC hasn’t put Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) or Dave Loebsack (IA-02) on the vulnerable incumbents’ list, but either could be adversely affected by Iowa’s new four-district map. In 2010 Braley won by the narrowest margin of all the Iowans in Congress, 49.5 percent to 47.5 percent, perhaps with an assist from third-party candidates. Loebsack’s margin of victory, 51 percent to 46 percent, was barely more than Boswell’s 50.8 percent to 46.6 percent win, even though Loebsack’s district had a six-point stronger Democratic lean than IA-03.

While many Iowa politics-watchers expect Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) to run in the newly drawn third district in 2012, he could end up facing Braley or even Loebsack (though that’s far less likely). Wherever he runs, House Speaker John Boehner’s “buddy” will almost surely have the financial backing of the NRCC.

Share any thoughts about the 2012 Congressional races in Iowa in this thread. Braley posted a diary here today about a bill he introduced to reduce the deficit, “end the unnecessary giveaways to Big Oil and provide incentives for renewable fuel producers to expand business and develop new technologies.” A couple of weeks ago, Braley and Latham tangled over legislation that might affect Iowa’s ethanol industry.

UPDATE: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline a fundraiser for Boswell’s campaign later this month at Roxanne Conlin’s home in Des Moines.

For years, Big Oil – Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, BP, Texaco, and ConocoPhillips  – has raked in record profits. But their dividend to consumers is usually the same: higher gas prices that make it more difficult to get to work, shop for groceries or drop the kids off at school.

Americans may be used to getting gouged at the pump – but we don’t deserve to get gouged in Congress too. Yet that’s exactly what happens when those big oil companies collect billions in tax breaks on our dime.

Over the next ten years, Big Oil will swindle American taxpayers to the tune of nearly $43 billion in unnecessary tax subsidies – claiming the breaks are needed to increase domestic oil production. Despite these outrageous tax loopholes, domestic oil production has decreased steadily since 1970. Meanwhile, our continued dependence on foreign oil puts the country at a national security risk.

I’m pleased to hear the recent drumbeat in Washington to eliminate oil subsidies, and I support these efforts. But closing these tax loopholes alone won’t end America’s need for affordable energy any time soon. That’s why I’ve put forward a commonsense plan to not only end the shameless handouts to Big Oil CEOs and Wall Street speculators, but also to address America’s ever-growing need for energy – all while creating good-paying jobs right here in Iowa.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act, which I introduced earlier this week, will end the unnecessary giveaways to Big Oil and provide incentives for renewable fuel producers to expand business and develop new technologies. Just as important, it will reduce our national deficit by billions.

The House of Representatives approved a two-week continuing resolution today by a bipartisan vote of 335 to 91. If approved by the Senate, the continuing resolution gives members of Congress more time to strike a deal on spending during the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. The previous spending resolution is set to expire on March 4, and leaders in both parties have said they are not seeking a shutdown of the federal government. The roll call shows that Steve King (IA-05) was one of only six House Republicans to vote against the continuing resolution. Tom Latham (IA-04) was among 231 Republicans who voted in favor. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03) were all among the 104 House Democrats who voted for the continuing resolution. The 85 Democrats who voted no included representatives from all wings of the party, but primarily members of the Progressive caucus, Congressional Black Caucus or Hispanic Caucus.

Pete Kasperowicz reports for The Hill,

More Democrats voted for the measure, which would reduce spending by $4 billion over the next two weeks, than against it, despite criticism of the GOP proposal ahead of the vote by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader and former Speaker.

Democratic leaders were divided. Pelosi voted no, but House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) voted for it. Democratic leaders urged their members to vote against the rule for the bill, but did not urge their members to vote against the spending measure itself.

I don’t have details on the $4 billion in cuts, but according to Raven Clabough, “Many of the cuts are from programs that President Obama has called for eliminating and the rest of the savings comes from ending the practice of earmarks.”

Before the final vote today,

the House voted on an amendment proposed by Representative William Keating that would eliminate taxpayer-funded subsidies to oil companies, a measure that failed by a vote of 176 to 249.

The roll call shows that vote went primarily along party lines. All House Republicans present (including Latham and King) voted against ending subsidies to oil companies. Boswell, Loebsack and Braley were among the 176 Democrats who voted to save money by cutting those subsidies.

UPDATE: As of Tuesday evening, only Braley’s office had released comments on today’s House votes. I’ve posted them after the jump. Like other recent statements by Braley, they emphasize the need to reduce the federal deficit.

SECOND UPDATE: King posted on his Twitter feed, “I will vote “NO” on the two week CR because some of ObamaCare is funded by it and the Pence amendment to block Planned Parenthood is not in.” Representative Michele Bachmann, a close ally of King who is considering running for president, voted against the continuing resolution for the same reasons.

The U.S. Air Force announced on Thursday that Boeing will receive a $35 billion contract to build aerial refueling tankers. The contract is expected to create roughly 800 jobs in Iowa, including 200 at Cedar Rapids-based Rockwell Collins. Iowa politicians from both parties hailed the decision, including Republican Governor Terry Branstad and Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett and Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack. Branstad, Braley and Loebsack all noted in their official statements that they had urged the U.S. Department of Defense to award Boeing the contract.  Former Governor Chet Culver went to Washington to lobby for Boeing’s bid last year. Boeing’s rival for the contract was the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, which makes Airbus planes. Airbus also uses subcontractors based in Iowa, but Boeing’s subcontractors employ more Iowans. The European company may protest the Air Force’s decision and has support from some members of Congress.

Des Moines business owner Mike Draper published a guest editorial in Saturday’s Des Moines Register undermining Republican claims about corporate tax cuts creating jobs:

I recently heard “cutting state taxes will add jobs” delivered with a perfect, deadpan tone, but I was the only one laughing. Wasn’t it meant to be a joke?

After all, since starting a small downtown clothing store, Raygun, in 2005, I have added about 25 jobs and never once considered the state tax rate when doing so. […]

Most job growth nationally and in Iowa will come from small businesses like mine, and many small businesses are set up as S-corporations, which don’t pay corporate tax; rather, any profits for the company are paid on the personal tax statements of the owners. So corporate tax cuts will only really affect the largest companies in Iowa, which add the least number of jobs over time.

But for argument sake, let’s say the governor wanted to cut state income-tax rates as well to help small businesses add jobs. Say he even reduced my state taxes by 20 percent and I was expected to hire new staff with that savings. On a salary of $40,000 per year, that 20 percent reduction moves my taxes by 1 percent, or 400 annual dollars.

So, indeed, I could hire a new employee with my savings; it would just take 100 years (and by 2111, would $40,000 per year even be enough for them to afford the newest hover-board that all the other guys at the store will have?).

However, if that tax savings were coupled with public pre-K being eliminated for my son, a $400 annual savings may be slightly offset by the additional $8,000 annually I’d have to spend on day care.

With the governor’s math, I’d be laying off someone every 5 years and hiring every 100.

State tax collection data doesn’t support the claim that corporate tax cuts would help Iowa’s small businesses expand:

About 885 businesses, with sales over $25 million in Iowa, paid 65 percent of the state’s corporate taxes in 2008. That’s $142 million of nearly $219 million paid, Iowa Department of Revenue data show.

In addition, the data show the biggest corporate taxpayers are large retailers with sales outside the state. Iowa taxes companies only for income earned within the state.

Branstad has said small businesses would benefit the most because most of their sales – and income – are within the state.

But data from a state report show the 22,000 companies that have sales exclusively in Iowa contributed just 19 percent of the revenue collected via the state’s corporate taxes. That was about $41.6 million in 2008.

The governor has promoted his plan to cut the state’s corporate tax rates – with the highest rate at 12 percent – to a flat 6 percent for all companies. Branstad has said the tax cut – along with reducing commercial property taxes and government spending and eliminating regulations that stifle job growth – will help create 200,000 jobs and boost income 25 percent for Iowa families over five years. […]

But Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson said “it’s very unclear to me how this tax cut would create significantly more jobs in Iowa.”

Swenson said the proposed tax would be “very beneficial to a lot of large retailers and service firms that serve Iowa demand.”

“But cutting the corporate tax rate isn’t going to create more of those firms,” he said. “And for those large firms we want to attract – the Googles, IBMs, the Microsofts, companies that produce for a worldwide market – it’s a meaningless tax cut because they already do not pay very much Iowa corporate tax,” given that their sales and services are mostly sold outside Iowa and avoid state tax.

Economist Peter Fisher fleshed out that argument in his recent report on Corporate Taxes and State Economic Growth (pdf file):

Business tax breaks are an expensive and inefficient way to attempt to stimulate a state economy. Because of the small effect of tax breaks on business costs, and the much larger importance of other production costs and location considerations, tax breaks will have little if any positive effect on private- sector employment. In fact, the revenue losses may well produce immediate public-sector job losses. Furthermore, the private-sector employment effects of such tax cuts could be reduced or even eliminated by a long-term deterioration in the quality of public services, which themselves have been shown to be important to businesses making location decisions, and which provide an important part of the foundation for the state economy.

The business owners I know hire new employees when they anticipate greater demand for their goods or services. Tax rates are not a factor in that decision.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Anyone go to the labor rally on Saturday at the capitol? Snow couldn’t keep 70,000 to 100,000 people from attending the labor rally in Madison, Wisconsin.

The U.S. House approved a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through September 30 by a 235 to 189 vote at 4:40 am Saturday morning. The bill contains about $61.5 billion in spending cuts; it “would kill more than 100 [federal] programs and cut funding for hundreds more.” The roll call shows remarkable party unity; all but three House Republicans voted for the bill, and every Democrat present voted against it. Iowa’s representatives voted along the usual party lines.

Much of the language in this continuing resolution will never become law. President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the House bill, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate is working on its own continuing resolution with roughly $25 billion to $41 billion in spending cuts. Some signs point toward a federal government shutdown, but House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says House Republicans are not seeking that outcome. Quinn Bowman and Linda Scott further note:

To make time for the negotiations between the two chambers, yet another short term [continuing resolution] might need to be passed – which brings up another wrinkle: as time passes and the fiscal year gets shorter and shorter, Republicans set on cutting billions from the rest of the year’s budget will have a smaller pie to slice as money is spent.

Many House Democrats denounced the Republican budget cuts, but I didn’t see any of them acknowledge the failure to pass 2011 budget bills when Democrats still controlled both chambers of Congress. U.S. Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic omnibus spending bill during the lame-duck session in December, setting the stage for the current budget brinksmanship. None of these fiscal 2011 spending cuts would be on the table if Congress had passed budget bills on time last year.

After the jump I’ve posted the five Iowa House representatives’ statements on the House continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011. All include themes we are likely to hear during the 2012 Congressional campaigns. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) embraced the principle of reducing government spending, but argued that the GOP plan would eliminate jobs here and undermine the national economic recovery. I noticed that Boswell is holding a roundtable discussion about transportation on February 22; expect him to warn of the dire consequences of proposed GOP spending cuts.

Braley’s comment on the continuing resolution warned that the proposal “will kill thousands of jobs in Iowa’s ethanol industry.” In that vein, I’ve also enclosed below his statement from February 16, touting an amendment he proposed to “safeguard the Renewable Fuel Standard.” The Environmental Protection Agency issued its final rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard earlier this month. Braley asserts that the continuing resolution blocks the EPA “from setting renewable fuel standards for 2012,” and industry groups are worried. House leaders ruled Braley’s amendment out of order, and Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) argued that the language prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would not affect the ethanol industry in any way. At The Iowa Republican blog, Craig Robinson says Braley “didn’t understand what he was talking about,” while Bleeding Heartland user SamuelJKirkwood claims here that Latham was misinformed or ignoring the facts. If that portion of the continuing resolution becomes law, we’ll find out later this year who was correct (either ethanol industry jobs will disappear or they won’t). Iowans are likely to hear more about this issue during the 2012 campaign, especially if the new map throws Braley and Latham into the same district.

Latham’s statement on the continuing resolution praised Congress for starting down “the road less traveled,” passing “some of the biggest spending cuts in the history of Congress.” He did some sleight of hand: “I joined a majority of my colleagues […] to vote in favor of cutting $100 billion in federal spending over the president’s funding request for the current fiscal year.” Jamie Dupree explains,

As for the budget cuts in this bill, Republicans persisted in calling this a cut of over $100 billion – but that figure is misleading, as it compares the bill’s spending levels to President Obama’s budget from last year, which was never enacted by the Congress.

It’s worth noting that Latham didn’t stand with the most ambitious House GOP axe-wielders. He was among 92 Republicans who joined Democrats to reject an amendment containing $22 billion more in cuts. Without elaborating, Latham described that proposal as “not thoughtful.” (As opposed to, say, zeroing out federal support for the Public Broadcasting Service or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–very thoughtful!)

The statement from Republican Steve King (IA-05) focused on his own successful amendments to the continuing resolution, which prohibit the use of federal funding “to implement and enforce ObamaCare.” King has consistently been one of the loudest voices in the House for repealing or otherwise blocking the health insurance reform law approved last March. Incidentally, unlike Latham, King voted for that amendment proposing to cut an additional $22 billion from current-year spending.

I haven’t seen any statement from Senator Chuck Grassley regarding the House GOP’s spending cut plans. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin has been on a tear for days, blasting how the House continuing resolution would affect health care in Iowa, employment and training in Iowa, the Social Security Administration in Iowa, education in Iowa, and so on.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget or the political debate over spending cuts in this thread.

On February 16, 2011, Congressman Tom Latham stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and made a complete fool of himself while simultaneously attacking the Iowa ethanol industry.  It’s not clear if Latham just didn’t read the amendment he was attacking, if his staff gave him bad analysis, or if he is so desperate to attack Congressman Bruce Braley, who sponsored the amendment, that he ignored all of the facts and the numerous ethanol and renewable fuels organizations who were aggressively encouraging lawmakers to support it.

Check out the video and see how Latham breathlessly goes on and on about the common sense amendment, it’s pretty astonishing:

In a surprising victory for common sense over lobbying by major defense contractor General Electric, the House of Representatives on February 16 scrapped funding for an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter backup engine the Pentagon doesn’t want.  The amendment to the continuing resolution on defense funding for the current fiscal year passed on an unusual bipartisan vote; 123 Democrats and 110 Republicans voted to kill the $450 million appropriation, while 130 Republicans and 68 Democrats voted to keep money for the jet engine in the bill (roll call). Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) was the only member of the Iowa House delegation to vote for ending the funding. He should cite this vote as evidence that he is serious about tackling government waste. Democrats Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) all voted against the amendment. They should explain why they want to spend $450 million this fiscal year to continue a program that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called “a waste of nearly $3 billion.”

Loebsack serves on the House Armed Services Committee. Boswell used to serve on that committee but no longer does in the new Congress.

In other Congressional news, the U.S. Senate approved a three-month extension for controversial PATRIOT Act provisions on February 15 by a vote of 86 to 12. Senator Chuck Grassley voted yes, as did all but two of his Republican colleagues. Senator Tom Harkin was among ten members of the Democratic caucus to vote no (roll call). Harkin’s office did not issue a statement on this vote and did not respond to my request for comment, so I don’t know whether he is against all efforts to extend those controversial PATRIOT Act provisions, or whether he would support Senator Pat Leahy’s bill to extend the provisions through 2013 with “additional safeguards to the act which would provide for increased oversight of U.S. Intelligence gathering tools.” Grassley has introduced a rival Senate bill that would permanently extend the government surveillance powers.  

President Barack Obama presented his $3.73 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 yesterday. I had a post in progress highlighting some good ideas from the proposal, like more investments in high-speed rail and clean energy programs, and reducing taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industries. There are bad ideas too, such as a pathetically small “cut” of $78 billion for defense spending over 10 years. The word “cut” misleads here because we’re talking about a slightly smaller rate of growth for the defense budget. Our military spending skyrocketed during the last decade and should be reduced substantially if Washington officials are serious about reducing the deficit.

The moral failure of Obama’s budget becomes clear when you look at the $400 billion in cuts he proposes for non-defense discretionary spending (which is half as large a portion of the budget pie as the military). Many of those cuts will hurt the vulnerable: less money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and some student aid programs, to name a couple of egregious examples. Obama also wants a “bipartisan” conversation about “strengthening” Social Security, and Washington bipartisanship on Social Security is sure to harm working people and future retirees.

Since the Republican-controlled House of Representatives won’t enact the president’s spending plans, the budget document is important mainly as a sign of Obama’s priorities and political calculations going into this year’s negotiations with Congress.

Speaking of political calculations, I was struck by Representative Bruce Braley’s statement on the president’s draft budget document–so much that I shifted gears on this post. Braley’s comments were another sign of a noticeable change in tone since he won a third term in Iowa’s first Congressional district. During the last Congress, Braley’s policy statements often emphasized the importance of public investments. In the past two months, he has he put deficit hawkishness front and center. Several examples are after the jump, along with background putting Braley’s new rhetorical style in political context.

The House of Representatives passed an extension of three PATRIOT Act provisions yesterday by a vote of 275 to 144. The roll call shows that Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted for the bill, as did all but 27 members of their caucus. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among 65 Democrats voting for the extensions, while Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted with the majority of the Democratic caucus against the bill.

Iowa’s representatives voted the same way last week when a similar measure failed to win the two-thirds majority needed for passage under special House rules.

Open Congress summarized the bill as follows:

Extends three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are set to expire on February, 28, 2011. They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without informing the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track international terrorist groups. These would be extended straight up — i.e. no reforms — and would expire again under the bill on December 8, 2011.

According to the Washington Post, senators “are debating three competing proposals that would either permanently extend the [PATRIOT Act] provisions or extend them through 2013.”

UPDATE: The U.S. Senate approved a three-month extension for controversial PATRIOT Act provisions on February 15 by a vote of 86 to 12. Senator Chuck Grassley voted yes, as did all but two of his Republican colleagues. Senator Tom Harkin was among ten members of the Democratic caucus to vote no (roll call). Harkin’s office did not issue a statement on this vote and did not respond to my request for comment, so I don’t know whether he is against all efforts to extend those controversial PATRIOT Act provisions, or whether he would support Senator Pat Leahy’s bill to extend the provisions through 2013with “additional safeguards to the act which would provide for increased oversight of U.S. Intelligence gathering tools.” Grassley has introduced a rival Senate bill that would permanently extend the government surveillance powers.  

A bill to extend parts of the PATRIOT Act fell seven votes short of passage in the House of Representatives yesterday. A summary at OpenCongress.org explains that this bill

Extends three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are set to expire on February, 28, 2011. They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without informing the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track international terrorist groups. These would be extended straight up — i.e. no reforms — and would expire again under the bill on December 8, 2011.

Although 277 House members voted for the bill and only 148 opposed it, the measure failed because it had been brought to the floor under special rules that limit debate but require a two-thirds majority. The roll call shows that 67 Democrats voted with the majority of the Republican caucus in favor of the PATRIOT Act extension, but 26 Republicans voted with most of the Democratic caucus against the bill.

Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no yesterday, while Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted yes. In all likelihood this bill will pass later this month when House leaders bring it to the floor under normal rules, requiring only 218 yes votes to pass.

Boswell’s vote yesterday is consistent with his record in this area. He voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its extension in 2005. He also voted with most House Republicans on the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008. Last year, Boswell voted for another PATRIOT Act extension bill that Loebsack and Braley opposed.

If Boswell faces a Democratic primary challenge in the new third Congressional district in 2012, his voting record on government surveillance may become a campaign issue. During his 2008 primary race against Ed Fallon, Boswell temporarily changed his stand on the FISA Act. He reverted to his original position after winning the primary.

President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address tonight. Share any comments about his speech or his presidency in this thread.

I find the prospect of a Democratic president arguing for austerity budgeting deeply depressing. A domestic budget freeze is a bad idea, and an earmark ban is just a waste of time. Earmarks don’t add to the deficit; they just give members of Congress more power to control how certain pots of money are spent.

I cannot believe how much media coverage has been wasted on plans for some Democrats and Republicans to sit together for the State of the Union. Who cares?

The “revisionist history” blaming Rahm Emanuel for Obama’s mistakes during his first two years sounds pathetic, even though I am not at all an admirer of Emanuel.

UPDATE: John Deeth is liveblogging at his place.

SECOND UPDATE: I don’t know why Obama is so intent on repeating the “great mistake” of 1937.

I’ve posted statements released by Iowa’s Congressional delegation after the jump.

The House of Representatives passed a bill today on “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” by a vote of 245 to 189. Iowa’s delegation split along the usual party lines: Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03), who voted for the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act last year, voted against repeal. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against health insurance reform last year and for repealing it. King was delighted: “100% of my language to repeal 100% of ObamaCare just passed the House with 100% Republican support = 100% great day 4 the USA!” Press releases from Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham and King are after the jump. Latham’s statement mentions the main points of the “replacement health care legislation” House Republicans are drafting.

Various groups and politicians have issued statements warning that many Americans will be hurt by repealing the health insurance reform. I’ve posted a few of those after the jump too, but I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about that just now. Repeal is a dead letter at least through 2012 and could advance in 2013 only if Republicans capture the U.S. Senate and defeat President Barack Obama.

I found it interesting that only three House Democrats voted for today’s repeal bill, even though 13 current members of the Democratic caucus voted against health insurance reform in the last Congress. Good whipping by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, or recognition that popular support for repeal may be declining?

Here in Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad announced on January 18 that he joined the state of Florida’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health insurance reform:

“I am signing on to this suit as the governor on behalf of the people of Iowa, because I believe Iowa taxpayers deserve to be heard on this critical matter,” Branstad said in a statement. “As we begin constructing our five-year budget, there is no doubt that the current federal health care law will shackle Iowa taxpayers for billions in unfunded mandates.”

The suit challenges the individual mandate of the health care reform law, as well as the expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, said Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht.

Branstad’s action is purely symbolic. The case will be litigated no matter how many states sign on as plaintiffs, and if the law is ruled unconstitutional, all states will be affected, not just those that joined the suit. Though I’m not an attorney, it seems that a whole lot of federal laws would have been struck down over the years if unfunded mandates really were unconstitutional.

Legal experts disagree over whether the Commerce clause gives Congress the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance reform.

Politically, Branstad’s opposition to health insurance mandates will boost his standing with the Republican base. They don’t really mind “activist judges,” and they won’t remember that Branstad advocated for a mandate to purchase health insurance as recently as 2007. (He explained why here.) The governor’s legal counsel, Brenna Findley, made the case against the individual mandate a central argument in her campaign against Attorney General Tom Miller last year. Miller supports the federal health insurance reform and has said the law is “heavily on the side of constitutionality.”

Deals struck during the Congressional lame-duck session have scuttled for now the federal government’s plan to purchase and open the Thomson Correctional Center facility in Illinois. The high-security prison was mostly built in 2001 but never utilized for lack of state budget funds. A year ago, officials announced plans for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to purchase the facility. The plan involved the Defense Department leasing part of one building to house some detainees transferred from the Guantanamo Bay military prison. Clinton, Iowa lies just across the Mississippi River from Thomson and is the main population center for the area. Local, state and federal officials estimated that opening the prison would generate nearly a thousand jobs directly and more indirectly as workers spent money in the local economy. In late 2009, Representative Bruce Braley said his constituents supported the plan for a new prison at Thomson, while prominent Iowa Republicans stoked fears about bringing terror suspects to a maximum-security facility anywhere in the midwest.

When drafting the 2011 defense authorization bill, House members barred the use of any federal funds for a facility to house former Guantanamo detainees, pending “a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility.” Similar language made it into the final version of the defense authorization bill, which the House and Senate approved on December 22. The provision will prevent the Obama administration from trying some terrorism suspects in U.S. civilian courts, and was struck to secure Republican support. (By some accounts, Republicans insisted on this provision in exchange for letting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal move forward.)

Federal Bureau of Prisons officials made clear this year that they still planned to purchase the Thomson Correction Center to relieve overcrowding in the federal prison system. However, it would cost the federal government more than $200 million to purchase and renovate the facility. The 2011 federal budget omnibus bill included funding to buy the Thomson Correctional Center, but an uproar over earmarks prompted Senate Republicans to reject the omnibus bill on December 16. Consequently, the federal government is operating on a continuing spending authorization until March 2011. Republican Congressional leaders have promised big domestic spending cuts next year, and it’s not clear whether the Bureau of Prisons, which is part of the Justice Department, will have the money to purchase Thomson. When the state of Illinois attempted to auction the facility last week, neither the federal government nor anyone else placed a bid.

The stalemate surrounding federal plans for Thomson runs counter to a decades-long American tradition of bipartisan political support for prisons as economic development projects.

The U.S. Senate approved a continuing resolution today to fund the federal government at current levels through March 4, 2011. Both the cloture motion and the bill itself passed by large bipartisan majorities; Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley voted for the cloture motion and the funding resolution. Harkin slammed Republicans for blocking the fiscal year 2011 omnibus bill last week, because unlike the continuing resolution approved today, the omnibus bill would have increased funding for programs such as Head Start, child care subsidies, meals for seniors and drugs for AIDS patients. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the continuing resolution later today to stop the government from running out of money at midnight. UPDATE: The House approved the spending bill by 193 to 165, with 75 representatives not voting. All five Iowans voted, and they split along party lines.

A bigger problem will come in March, when House Republicans force through major cuts in domestic spending (probably with the eager cooperation of President Barack Obama). Those will be a drag on the economy, erasing any stimulative effect from the lousy deal Obama struck on extending the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the House gave final approval to the food safety bill today on a mostly party-line vote of 215 to 144. Iowa’s representatives split the usual way, with Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voting for the bill and Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voting against it. I am still surprised that the Senate resurrected the food safety bill on Sunday. I have yet to see any explanation for why Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agreed to let it pass. Coburn had been that bill’s most vocal opponent in the Senate all year. It’s not as if Coburn suddenly decided to stop being a jerk; he appears ready to block the 9/11 responders bill from becoming law during the lame-duck session. Even some Fox News commentators are upset about that political maneuver.

The Senate took a step toward ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) today. Eleven Republicans joined all Democrats present to approve a cloture motion on that treaty, which the U.S. and Russia signed in April. Grassley voted with most of his GOP colleagues against the cloture motion on START; he has voted for various Republican amendments offered to the treaty. I haven’t seen any statement from his office explaining his opposition. The last START expired in December 2009, and we need to ratify the new treaty in order to resume inspecting Russian nuclear bases. There could hardly be a more important national security issue. Ronald Reagan’s former chief arms control negotiator said last month that Iran and North Korea were the “only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified.”

The House of Representatives approved a bill last night to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, reduce the estate tax, and extend benefits for some unemployed people by 13 months. The bill passed by an unusual bipartisan vote of 277 to 148. The Democratic caucus split 139 in favor of the bill and 112 against, while Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill by a 138 to 36 margin. The roll call shows that Iowa Democrats Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for the bill, as did Republican Tom Latham (IA-04). Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Republican Steve King (IA-05) both voted no.

It’s a disgrace that House Democrats went along with a so-called “compromise” that makes the lowest-income workers pay more, does nothing for people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and will lay the groundwork for big cuts to domestic spending and Social Security in the future. President Barack Obama deserves the most blame for not negotiating a better deal with Republican leaders. He could have changed the dynamic months ago by making a clear threat to veto any extension of the tax cuts for the highest incomes. But he lacked the courage or the integrity to stand up for tax policies he claims to believe in.

Democrats should nevertheless have voted against this bill, in my opinion. They campaigned against the Bush tax cuts for a decade and are now extending them at all income levels, setting the stage for a permanent extension two years from now. Sorry, Sue Dvorsky: that’s not standing up for the middle class.

It’s a moral failure for the Democratic Party to ask people earning less than $20,000 and families earning less than $40,000 to pay a bit more while the wealthiest people don’t sacrifice a penny. Democrats may have worried the Republican-controlled House would pass an even less favorable bill in the new year, which Obama would sign.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. You can tell Loebsack isn’t proud of this vote, and Boswell makes some excuses too. But it’s consistent with his style: “As I have always said, my legislative philosophy is if you can’t take home the whole loaf of bread, grab as many slices as you can to benefit your constituents […].”

Braley’s press release touting his no vote uses a Republican frame (“Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars […]”). His remarks during the House floor debate also focused on fiscal conservatism, although Braley also threw in some populist lines criticizing the tax breaks for the rich. He also cited the threat to “the long-term viability of Social Security.”

UPDATE: In the comments, John Deeth mentioned the House vote on an amendment to raise the estate tax rate and lower the exemption to that tax received just 194 yes votes, all from Democrats. Braley and Loebsack voted with the majority of their caucus, but Boswell was among the 60 Democrats who voted with Republicans. Changing the bill would have sent the measure back to the Senate rather than directly to the president’s desk.

The House of Representatives approved a stand-alone bill today to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The vote was 250 to 175, with just 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote yes and 15 Democrats voting no. Iowa’s Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for repeal, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against. Boswell is the only veteran among Iowa’s current House delegation. He served in the Army for 20 years, including two tours in Vietnam.

I haven’t seen any Iowa poll on this subject, but numerous national polls have indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. That figure was 77 percent in the most recent poll on the issue, conducted by Langer Research for ABC News and the Washington Post. A Pentagon survey this year found that “70 percent of surveyed service members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.” Support for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was significantly lower among Marines, however.

The House of Representatives approved the DREAM Act on December 8 by a vote of 216 to 198. The bill would give some undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship. Eligible people could obtain “conditional” status for six years provided they have no criminal record, have lived in the country for at least five years, and have graduated from high school or received a GED. To maintain legal status, people would have to pass a criminal background check and demonstrate that they have either attended college or served in the military for at least two years. Although 38 House Democrats opposed the DREAM Act yesterday, all three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for it. Only eight House Republicans crossed party lines to support this bill, and those did not include Tom Latham or Steve King. In recent weeks, King has slammed the DREAM Act as a “multi-billion dollar amnesty nightmare.”

The White House supports the DREAM Act, and the administration has mostly exempted students even as deportations of undocumented immigrants increased since President Barack Obama took office. However, Obama didn’t insist on passage of the DREAM Act as part of his tax cut deal with Congressional Republican leaders. The Senate is expected to vote on the House version of this bill next week. Although some Republicans support the DREAM Act, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, I would be surprised if it passes during the lame duck session.

Incidentally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has supported legislation like the DREAM Act in the last, but last week he said he opposed current bill before Congress. He must be aware that if he runs for president again, he’ll need to win over GOP primary voters and caucus-goers who overwhelmingly oppose what conservatives call “amnesty.”

Also on December 8, the House voted on the Seniors Protection Act. According to a statement from Braley’s office, that bill “would have provided a one-time $250 payment to seniors on Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), railroad retirement, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits due to the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for 2011 (COLA).” The bill received 254 votes in favor and 153 votes against but still failed, because it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. The Iowa delegation again split on party lines.

Meanwhile, the offices of Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell still have not responded to my requests for comment on Obama’s tax deal with Republicans. On December 9 the House Democratic caucus reportedly voted against bringing the deal to the floor, but that was a non-binding resolution. The bill could still pass with a minority of Democratic votes and a majority of Republicans. On the Senate side, Republican Chuck Grassley says the deal is better than doing nothing. Democrat Tom Harkin says he is working behind the scenes to improve the deal and is inclined to vote no without some changes. However, even as he criticized Obama’s negotiating strategy, Harkin didn’t rule out supporting the deal until he sees the final package.

UPDATE: Braley released this noncommittal statement on December 9:

“As the tax cut package takes shape, I want to reiterate my support for a tax cut extension for every American family on incomes up to $250,000.  I continue to fight for an extension of unemployment benefits, especially during the holiday season.  I remain extremely concerned that extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans will explode the deficit.”

“I continue to fight to cut taxes for Iowa’s families and I am working to ensure our future generations are not saddled with extreme debt.  I look forward to reading the legislative language produced on the bill before making a final decision on these important issues.”

SECOND UPDATE: Steve King talked to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth:

King said he dislikes that the tax cuts are only extended for two years. He said he wouldn’t go to the mat to extend the tax cuts permanently, but that they should be at a minimum extended five years so people sitting on capital to invest will know their tax liabilities for a longer period.

Further, King doesn’t like the unemployment benefits extension, since he said that only encourages people to not work and continue to receive those dollars.

THIRD UPDATE: Loebsack’s office says he “has consistently supported extending the middle-class tax cuts. He is also pleased to see that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits and additional tax cuts for hard-working families are included, along with potential extensions of renewable energy tax credits.  He is actively working to improve the proposal as it develops in order to ensure that the best interests of Iowans are being served.”