Some bills are designed to solve real problems, some bills are designed to create the appearance of solving real problems, and some bills are designed to solve non-existent problems. The U.S. House passed that third kind of bill yesterday, seeking to block rules the Environmental Protection Agency has not even proposed.

Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) were among the 33 Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. The Iowa Democrats weren’t all equally supportive during the floor debate, however.

U.S. Senate Republicans successfully filibustered President Barack Obama’s appointee to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today. It was the second time this week that Senator Chuck Grassley and his GOP colleagues blocked a presidential nominee.

Without Congressional action, a temporary payroll tax cut intended to stimulate the economy will expire on December 31 of this year. Last week the Senate defeated two proposals to extend the tax cut; Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin were on opposite sides of both votes.

Many Iowa Democrats have been expecting Senator Tom Harkin to retire when his current term expires in 2014. However, the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions indicated yesterday that he plans to run for re-election at least one more time.

Least surprising news bulletin of the year: the Congressional “super committee” failed to agree on a plan to reduce the U.S. deficit. Reaction from most of the Iowans in Congress is after the jump.

This Halloween weekend seemed like a good time to highlight some tricks and treats from the news headlines.

Ten years ago today, President George W. Bush signed a bill called the “United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” better known as the PATRIOT Act. It’s a good time to reflect on the law’s impact as well as how the Iowans in Congress voted on its provisions over the last decade.

Libyan forces captured and killed Colonel Moammar Gadhafi today in the former dictator’s hometown of Sirte. Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) welcomed news of the “victory for freedom-loving people” but added that “With Gadhafi out of the picture, it’s time for US involvement in Libya to end.” Braley has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s open-ended intervention in Libya. He has voted against authorizing military action there and repeatedly demanded a cost accounting of our mission.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) reacted to today’s news with a statement calling on “international organizations to step forward and help the Libyan people” so that the U.S. can “focus on creating jobs here at home.” Loebsack sits on the House Armed Services Committee but has generally avoided commenting on the U.S. mission in Libya. In June, he voted against authorizing the intervention but also against defunding it.

The full statements from Braley and Loebsack are after the jump. I will update this post if other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation comment on today’s events. UPDATE: Added reaction from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) and Steve King (R, IA-05). King and Boswell supported authorizing the Libya intervention. King was one of only five House members to vote against barring federal funding for U.S. ground troops in Libya.

SECOND UPDATE: Comments from Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Senator Chuck Grassley are below.

Senator Chuck Grassley got the word out yesterday: he won’t endorse any Republican presidential candidate before the Iowa caucuses.

The U.S. House and Senate approved trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea yesterday. All Iowa Republicans supported each of the three deals, while Iowa Democrats voted against them. Links to roll calls and statements from most of the lawmakers are after the jump.

Senator Tom Harkin has tried repeatedly to change Senate procedures that obstruct simple majority rule. In January of this year, Senate Democrats failed to coalesce around his reasonable filibuster reform proposals, opting instead for what Harkin called “baby steps” that “don’t get to the heart of the matter.”

Tonight, while the chamber debated a low-profile bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a simple majority vote to change Senate rules. He was targeting a procedure that amounted to a repeat filibuster rather than the filibuster itself, but he may have set the stage for major rule changes in the future.

A bipartisan vote in the U.S. Senate today appears to have prevented a federal government shutdown after the current fiscal year ends on September 30. Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both supported the deal.  

The U.S. just voted 59 to 36 to table the House version of a continuing resolution funding the federal government through November 18. Senator Tom Harkin voted with all but one Democrat to table the House legislation; Senator Chuck Grassley voted with most of his fellow Republicans against tabling the resolution. Details are below.

Less than 10 days before the current fiscal year ends, Congress has not approved any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012. Yet again, continuing funding resolutions are needed to prevent the federal government from shutting down after September 30. Yesterday Representative Tom Latham was the only Iowan to vote yes as the U.S. House failed to approve a continuing resolution backed by Republican leaders.

All five Iowans in the U.S. House are co-sponsoring a bill that would require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “to revise the Missouri River Master Manual to increase the total amount of storage space within the Missouri River Reservoir System that is allocated for flood control.” After the jump I’ve posted more details on that bill and other news about the Iowans in Congress.

Both of Iowa’s senators voted against the deal to raise the debt ceiling in early August, but only one of them voted last night to block a $500 billion debt ceiling increase, which was part of that agreement.

Earlier on September 8, Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley helped send a patent reform bill to President Barack Obama. The president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have characterized patent reform as a job creation measure. Follow me after the jump for more on yesterday’s Senate votes.

President Barack Obama just made his case for “an American Jobs Act” in a speech to both chambers of Congress. In the usual Obama style, he offered Republicans a lot of compromises, like corporate tax cuts and a tax credit for employers. He argued for a payroll tax cut as well and called on Democrats to support “modest adjustments” to Medicare and Medicaid as well. On the spending side, Obama is seeking more funding for infrastructure, such as repairing roads and bridges and fixing “at least 35,000 schools.”

The full transcript of the president’s speech (as prepared) is after the jump. I’ve also posted some Iowa reaction, and I’ll keep this post updated as other members of Congress weigh in.  

I’ve seen a lot of hippie-punching by professional Democrats, but the Iowa Democratic Party’s attack on Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement yesterday was a particularly cynical example.  

Senator Chuck Grassley made news last week by publicizing a whistleblower’s claims about widespread file destruction at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Thousands of preliminary investigation files no longer exist, which hampers the SEC’s ability to identify and prosecute financial crimes. The alleged practice goes back nearly two decades, despite a federal law that grants the National Archives and Records Administration authority over preserving government files.

President Barack Obama didn’t create this problem, but his cozy relationship with Wall Street helped keep law-breaking alive at the SEC.

The Republican Party of Iowa gets its first bite at the apple today, raking in money at the Ames straw poll event. Six presidential candidates who paid for space at the venue will speak to the crowd, along with five GOP elected officials and state party chairman Matt Strawn. I’ve posted the speaking schedule below and will update this post throughout the day.

Nine candidates will appear on the straw poll ballot: the eight who debated Thursday night plus Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan. Voting closes at 4 pm, but it may take Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz a long time to tabulate results because of the large number of expected write-ins. Speaking of Schultz, I noticed on the Secretary of State’s website yesterday that he has put out only one press release since his embarrassing smackdown of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman two months ago. The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board dismissed an ethics complaint that the Iowa Democratic Party filed regarding that press release.

Any comments about the spectacle are welcome in this thread, especially first-person accounts from Bleeding Heartland users who are in Ames today.

Which candidates, if any, will receive fewer votes than write-ins Sarah Palin, Texas Governor Rick Perry or “Rick Parry,” the name Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC is pushing? I expect McCotter will have a tough day. Don’t know who is supporting him besides former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants, and he doesn’t have a huge following in the Iowa GOP anymore, to put it mildly. When McCotter bid for space at the straw poll, he probably wasn’t expecting to be left out of the Fox News debate. That plus the lack of time and money he’s spent in Iowa puts him at a big disadvantage.

If former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty does better than expected in the straw poll, he will owe thanks to a couple of outside groups. The American Petroleum Institute’s Iowa Energy Forum and Strong America Now both have organizational ties to the Pawlenty campaign. Jennifer Jacobs of the Des Moines Register discussed those connections and the outside groups’ work in greater detail here. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee’s Ames straw poll effort got a huge assist from Americans for Fair Taxation, helping Huckabee finish a close second to Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: News from the day is after the jump.

The U.S. Senate approved the last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling today by a vote of 74 to 26 (roll call). Iowa’s senators voted no for very different reasons. Democrat Tom Harkin reject the deal he called “a clear and present danger to the fragile, indeed faltering, economic recovery.” Republican Chuck Grassley said the plan “delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees, and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.” The complete statements from by Harkin and Grassley are after the jump.

Yesterday all five Iowans in the U.S. House voted against the debt deal as well. To my knowledge, no other state’s entire Congressional delegation rejected this national embarrassment.

After hailing passage of an austerity plan that will deeply cut domestic spending, President Barack Obama said today, “We’ve got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put America back to work.” He missed that chance.

LATE UPDATE: Richard Kogan posted a helpful summary on “How the Potential Across-the-Board Cuts in the Debt Limit Deal Would Occur.”

The U.S. House on Friday evening approved Speaker John Boehner’s latest bill to sharply cut federal spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. The bill barely passed by a 218 to 210 vote (roll call). Every House Democrat present voted no, including Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). The big surprise for me was that both Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) were among the 22 Republicans who voted against the bill. I expected King to oppose the measure, because many of his Tea Party Caucus colleagues believe Boehner isn’t cutting enough spending. But Latham is one of the speaker’s closest friends, and I thought he would be one of the votes putting the bill over the top. It was a tremendous struggle for Boehner to line up enough support for this bill; he had to delay Thursday’s scheduled vote in order to rewrite some provisions today.

Sometimes in situations like these, the House speaker gives some members in the majority caucus permission to vote no, if they are in tough districts. Latham will face Boswell in the new third Congressional district next year, and some of the spending cuts in this bill would affect popular programs. It’s possible Latham voted no with Boehner’s consent, once the speaker knew he had 218 yes votes lined up. That insulates Latham against some potential attack ads. However, Latham was on WHO radio this afternoon saying something must be done to ensure that the government pays its bills. If he acknowledges the need to raise the debt ceiling, when does he think a better deal will come around than Boehner’s bill?

Incidentally, House leaders don’t seem inclined to move on Latham’s bill to prioritize certain types of spending in case no debt ceiling deal is reached.

The U.S. Senate is expected to table the latest House bill on the debt ceiling later Friday evening. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been working on a new “compromise” that is depressingly similar to what Boehner proposed, so Congress is probably headed toward a total Republican victory–big spending cuts, no revenue increases. Notably, if the U.S. ever does pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, all the savings would go toward deficit reduction, rather than investing in our own infrastructure or social programs. Never mind that the U.S. economy is sputtering and will probably go back into recession under fiscal austerity. That serves Republican political interests as well, because President Barack Obama will be blamed for the downward spiral. Obama’s approval rating on the economy is already low, and most Americans think job creation is more important than deficit reduction right now.

For some reason, Obama prefers this outcome to Senator Tom Harkin’s advice: raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

UPDATE: On Friday night six Senate Republicans voted with all 53 members of the Democratic caucus to table the motion on concurring with Boehner’s bill (roll call). Grassley was among the 41 Republicans who opposed the motion to table.

Statements released by Latham, King, Loebsack and Braley are now after the jump.

SATURDAY UPDATE: The House rejected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill on July 30; it was a symbolic vote because Reid is still revising the proposal, which so far doesn’t have enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Most House Democrats voted for the Reid bill, including Boswell. However, Braley and Loebsack were among the 11 Democrats who voted with all Republicans present against that bill (roll call). I am seeking comment from Braley and Loebsack offices on why they voted against the Reid proposal. It’s worth noting that like Boehner’s bill, Reid’s plan would cut more than $2 trillion in spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. A total disgrace.

UPDATE: Loebsack released this statement about Saturday’s vote: “We must get Iowa’s economy moving forward.  Today’s vote was not about a solution, it was about political leverage in Washington.”

FURTHER UPDATE: Here’s Harkin speaking on July 30:

“I’m talking about that there’s precedents for presidents to do things where the Constitution doesn’t give the president explicit authority but it doesn’t prohibit the president from doing it, and I believe there’s a basis in the 14th amendment as decided in Perry v. United States,” Sen Tom Harkin (D-IA) said on the Senate floor. “I think the president – barring action from the Congress – not only has the authority to do so, he has the responsibility to not let this country default.”

SUNDAY UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Reid called a cloture motion on his horrendous compromise proposal Sunday afternoon. It needed 60 votes to pass but only received 50, mostly from Democrats (roll call). I don’t understand Harkin voting for cloture here, when the bill has none of the balance he has advocated. Maybe he planned to vote against the bill itself later–who knows? Grassley voted against cloture, as did every Republican present besides Scott Brown. I’ve added Grassley’s statement below.

The U.S. Senate voted down the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 today, three days after the House approved that Republican budget-cutting plan. All members of the Democratic caucus present, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for a motion to table the motion to proceed with considering the bill (roll call). All Senate Republicans present, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted against the motion to table. Tabling the bill in effect kills it for this session of Congress.

After the jump I’ve posted the floor statement Grassley submitted yesterday in support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. He argued that raising taxes would neither increase federal government revenues nor reduce the federal deficit. He described Cut, Cap, and Balance as “the only plan that has been put forth to address our deficit and debt problem” and claimed it would “impose budget caps to get our spending down to a manageable level compared to our gross domestic product.” This piece by Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger points out that the “last time federal spending dipped below 18 percent of GDP was 1966.” Click through for a chart showing how severe spending cuts would have to be to bring fiscal year 2016 spending down to 18 percent of GDP. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described this bill as “one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades.”

I’ve also posted below Harkin’s floor statement opposing Cut, Cap, and Balance. He reminded colleagues that President Ronald Reagan warned Congress against refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and that Reagan supported “corrective income tax increases in 1982 and 1984” when he realized that “his 1981 tax cuts were resulting in large deficits.” Harkin also claimed the Republican bill would defund Medicare by putting “the federal government in a fiscal straightjacket, allowed to spend no more than in the mid-1960s, before Medicare.”

Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Steve King (IA-05) spoke out this week for preserving the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a July 20 hearing on S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act. That bill would repeal part of the DOMA so that for purposes of federal law, “an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into.” Six states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages.

Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his opening statement in yesterday’s hearing asserted that “George Orwell would have marveled” at calling S. 598 the “Respect for Marriage Act.” In Grassley’s view, the bill would undermine the institution of marriage. He denied that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 “to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.” He asserted that supporters of DOMA now face threats and intimidation that amount to an “unacceptable” “chilling of First Amendment rights.”

Grassley invited King to testify before the committee, and in his statement, King asserted that recognizing same-sex marriages would devalue the institution of marriage. Saying “you can’t choose who you love” could be used to justify incestuous or polygamous unions, King told the senators. He also argued that the DOMA is consistent with the will of the American people, who have voted in 31 states to restrict legal marriage to one man and one woman. (More recent opinion polling has shown growing support for same-sex marriage rights.)

After the jump I’ve posted the full texts of Grassley’s opening remarks and King’s testimony. Both Iowa Republicans described the government’s interest in protecting marriage as an institution that promotes procreation. King cited a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” During the past decade, several state Supreme Courts have rejected that argument as a reason to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage.

Multiple plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the federal DOMA. Click here for a brief summary of six lawsuits working their way through federal courts. In July 2010, a U.S. District Court judge hearing two of those cases in Massachusetts struck down section 3 of the DOMA. In February of this year, President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Department of Justice not to defend “the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples” as applied in those two court cases. This week, White House spokesman Jay Carney affirmed that the president supports repealing DOMA. King claimed in his testimony that President Obama said DOMA is unconstitutional “despite no court ever reaching that conclusion.” He may be unaware of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling from last summer.

While I support repealing DOMA, I view the current debate over S. 598 as a somewhat cynical public relations exercise. Everyone knows that the Republican-controlled U.S. House would never approve a DOMA repeal bill. Had Democrats tried to move this legislation when they held majorities in both houses of Congress, I would give them more credit. It’s notable that Obama publicly voiced his opinion about DOMA only after its repeal was a dead letter in the House.

Any comments about marriage equality are welcome in this thread.

The U.S. Senate confirmed J. Paul Oetken as a District Court just for the Southern District of New York today, making Oetken the first openly gay person confirmed for a federal judgeship. The Senate vote was 80 to 13 (roll call), with Republicans casting all of the no votes. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley both voted yes on Oetken’s nomination. Throughout his career, Grassley has usually voted to confirm judges nominated by presidents from either party. However, Grassley voted against confirming both of President Barack Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. More recently, Grassley helped filibuster Goodwin Liu’s nomination for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Oetken was valedictorian at Regis High School in Cedar Rapids before graduating from the University of Iowa in 1988 and from Yale Law School in 1991. Here is more background on his career in law and business:

Oetken is currently the senior vice president and associate general counsel of Cablevision, a cable television company primarily serving customers on the eastern seaboard. He has a long history of federal service, previously serving as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun and attorney-advisor in the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Oetken was recommended to replace Judge Denny Chin on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by New York Senator Charles E. Schumer. […]

Schumer called Oetken a “strong advocate for the LGBT community” in his statement, citing Oetken’s support of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender Project as well as the amicus brief he co-authored in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the sodomy law in Texas.

“The Texas Homosexual Conduct Law violates principles that are basic to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” stated the introduction to the amicus brief, which Oetken wrote with Chai R. Feldblum, a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “[A]nimosity toward a group of people is not a legitimate purpose for governmental discrimination against such a group.”

Speaking on the Senate floor today, Schumer said Oetken

will give hope to many talented young lawyers who, until now, thought their paths might be limited because of their sexual orientation. When Paul becomes Judge Oetken, he will be living proof to all those young lawyers that it really does get better.

Schumer also hailed Oetken’s “moderation,” which (along with his work for a major media company) may explain why Oetken won support from so many Senate Republicans.

Perhaps some Bleeding Heartland readers remember Oetken from his time in Cedar Rapids or Iowa City. Regis alums must be proud.

Two days after rejecting a similar measure, the Senate voted today to repeal a key ethanol tax credit as of July 1:

[Democratic Senator Dianne] Feinstein’s amendment to an economic development bill would quickly end the credit of 45 cents for each gallon of ethanol that fuel blenders mix into gasoline. The credit led to $5.4 billion inforegone revenue last year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The amendment also ends the 54-cent per gallon import tariff that protects the domestic ethanol industry.

Thursday’s vote was a turnaround from Tuesday, when just 40 senators voted for [Republican Senator Tom] Coburn’s identical amendment, well shy of the 60 needed to advance it.

But the politics of Tuesday’s battle were clouded by Democratic anger at Coburn’s surprise procedural move last week that set up the vote. Democratic leaders had whipped against the amendment heading into Tuesday’s vote, but two aides said they did not do so ahead of the vote Thursday.

Both Iowans in the Senate voted against the Feinstein amendment, which passed 73 to 27 (roll call). Tom Harkin was one of 13 Democrats to vote no, and Chuck Grassley was one of 14 Republicans to vote no. Most of the opposition came from significant corn-producing states.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack called today’s Senate vote “ill advised” and warned that jobs would be lost. His full statement is after the jump. I will update this post with reaction from Harkin and Grassley if it becomes available. Their comments on Tuesday’s ethanol vote are here.

UPDATE: Philip Brasher writes for the Des Moines Register,

The vote was largely symbolic in that the House is expected to reject the provision because tax measures are supposed to originate in the House, not in the Senate. But the sweeping defeat was a powerful indication of how the industry’s once legendary political clout on Capitol Hill has all but disappeared because of  the federal deficit and concerns about the impact of the biofuel on food prices and the environment. The subsidy and tariff are due to expire at the end of the year and the industry is trying to continue some kind of subsidy after that  to go with the annual usage mandates that require refiners  to add ethanol to gasoline. The mandate rises each year until 2015 before leveling off at 15 billion gallons. […]

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said that the rising cost of food is a sleeper issue around the country and that the vote to kill the ethanol subsidy was a “vote to lower food prices and to lower the national debt.” […]

The ethanol industry did achieve one victory today when the Senate rejected, 59-41,  a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to block the Obama administration from subsidizing the installation of ethanol pumps and storage tanks. However, the House approved a similar measure 283-128 earlier in the day as part of an appropriations bill for the Agriculture Department. That Senate vote’s important, however, because it shows the industry has support there for shifting at least some of the  federal aid it’s now getting into infrastructure subsidies, according to energy policy analyst Kevin Book.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both voted to preserve a key ethanol tax credit today, as an effort to end that credit six months early fell way short of the 60 votes needed in the U.S. Senate. Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had submitted an amendment to repeal the 45-cent-per-gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit for ethanol blenders as of July 1. The credit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011. Coburn’s amendment “also would have eliminated a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol,” saving the federal government approximately $2.7 billion total. Only 40 senators (34 Republicans and six who caucus with Democrats) voted for a cloture motion on Coburn’s amendment. Grassley and Harkin were among the 59 senators (13 Republicans and 46 who caucus with Democrats) who voted against cloture; click here for the roll call.

Today’s vote might have been much closer had Coburn not used unusual Senate procedures to force the legislation to the floor. Democratic Senate leaders whipped the vote against Coburn’s amendment, bringing around some Democrats who oppose ethanol subsidies. Democrat Dianne Feinstein, a co-sponsor of the Coburn amendment, nonetheless voted no on today’s cloture motion and said publicly, “If it weren’t for the process, we would have 60 votes.” Feinstein had urged Coburn “to withdraw his amendment and wait until next week” for a Senate vote.

Most of the Republicans who voted against the Coburn amendment represent large corn-producing states. A major anti-tax group’s opposition to the measure may have peeled off a few GOP votes as well. Grover Norquist’s group Americans for Tax Reform argued that eliminating any tax credit without simultaneously adding new tax cuts amounts to a tax increase.

Ethanol supporters also reduced support for Coburn’s amendment by introducing a rival proposal yesterday. Harkin and Grassley are both co-sponsoring the new bipartisan Senate legislation:

While Coburn’s language would completely eliminate the subsidy, the pro-ethanol proposal would cut off the subsidy on July 1, and replace it with a variable subsidy that fluctuates with the price of oil. […]

Under this proposal, ethanol blenders would get no subsidy at all when oil prices are above $90 a barrel. If oil falls to between $80 and $90 a barrel, they would get a six cents per gallon subsidy. Another six cents would be added for each $10 drop in the price of oil, and a maximum subsidy of 30 cents a gallon could be received when oil falls to $50 a barrel or less (a summary of the bill is here).

That’s still less than the current 45 cents a gallon subsidy that ethanol blenders receive currently, regardless of the price of oil.

Proponents of the bill say ending the current system on July 1 and moving to a variable subsidy would save $2.5 billion. In a nod to Coburn and his supporters, the bill would use $1 billion of that for deficit reduction.

The rest would be used for the variable subsidy, but also for the development of ethanol infrastructure and other incentives. For example, the bill would expand tax credits to ethanol blender pumps, and extend through 2014 the small producer ethanol credit.

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s floor statement against the Coburn amendment and his comments released after today’s vote. I will update this post if I see official comment from Harkin.

UPDATE: Added Harkin’s statement praising the Senate for rejecting “this misguided amendment.” The Iowa Environmental Council reminds us that the government’s pro-ethanol policy has unintended consequences for water quality.

Resisting a full-court press from bank industry lobbyists, Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin voted yesterday against delaying new regulations of fees banks can charge for debit card retail transactions. Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted last year, the Federal Reserve Board has until July 21 “to ensure fees banks charge merchants for debit card purchases are ‘reasonable and proportional.’” Those fees currently average 44 cents per transaction, totaling approximately $1.3 billion per month nationwide. A proposed Fed rule would cap the fees at 12 cents per transaction.

Democratic Senator Jon Tester of Montana and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee have been trying to water down the regulation:

Tester and Corker had originally proposed a 24-month delay, then shortened it to 15 months and on Tuesday filed an amendment to reduce it to 12 months in a bid to pick up support.

The Tester-Corker measure would require bank regulators to study the impact of the Durbin regulation on consumers and community banks and credit unions for six months. It requires regulators to issue a rule implementing new swipe fee rates six months later but gives them power to include a wider range of costs which could let banks charge more than the Fed is currently proposing.

The number two Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, sponsored the Dodd-Frank amendment on debit card swipe fees. Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Durbin said “leading up to this vote has been one of the most heated debates and exchanges that many of us in the Senate have seen in our time.” The Hill’s Alexander Bolton called it ” the biggest K Street battle of 2011.”

Tester and Corker fell six votes short of the 60 needed to approve their amendment to the financial reform law. In an unusual split, 19 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted to delay the debit card fee rules. Grassley and Harkin were among the 12 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent who voted against the amendment (roll call).

Both of Iowa’s U.S. senators both voted for Durbin’s amendment on debit card fees last May (roll call). Kudos to them for resisting the pressure to delay this reasonable regulation. Bolton noted that nine Senate Democrats who supported the original debit card rule also voted for the Tester-Corker amendment.

For what it’s worth, credit cards still offer consumers more protection than debit cards for certain retail transactions.

What’s on your mind this holiday weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Several energy-related stories caught my eye this week. New analysis suggests the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is worse than initially thought, because “containment chambers of damaged reactors […] were likely breached.” In terms of radioactive material released into the ocean, Fukushima could become “even larger than Chernobyl.”

Earlier this month, the Japan Times reported, “High radiation readings taken in the No. 1 reactor building the night of March 11 suggest it was the quake rather than the loss of cooling that critically damaged the Fukushima No. 1 power plant […].”

As part of its response to the nuclear crisis, the Japanese government may require “all new buildings and houses to come fitted with solar panels by 2030.” Solar power has the potential to reduce demand for electricity during peak hours.

In local news, Ben Foster, a former campaign staffer for presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, pleaded guilty this week to public intoxiation during an embarrassing incident this spring. Authorities dropped a trespassing charge against Foster, who tried to get into the wrong house in the middle of the night. He’s lucky he didn’t get charged with driving drunk en route to this misadventure.

Sarah Palin will be the focus of a two-hour-long film, which its director will premiere in Iowa “late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.” No word yet on which Iowa theater will show the movie. Meanwhile, a former top aide to Palin during her time as governor of Alaska just published a “scathing tell-all” book.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s twitter technique caught the eye of Steven Nelson at the Daily Caller. I disagree with Grassley twitter detractors like Sam Biddle. It’s refreshing to see a politician speak in his own voice, without running it by communications staff. This is still my all-time favorite Grassley tweet.

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.

The U.S. Senate rejected motions to proceed with considering four draft budgets for the 2012 fiscal year yesterday. Democratic leaders scheduled the vote primarily to get Republicans on the record supporting the budget that passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives last month. That blueprint, also known as Paul Ryan’s budget, foresees big changes to the Medicare program and became a central issue in Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 26th Congressional district.

Senator Chuck Grassley voted for two out of the three Republican proposals on the table, including the Ryan budget, while Senator Tom Harkin voted against all three GOP budgets as well as President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint.

Details on the votes and proposals are after the jump.

Yesterday Senator Chuck Grassley and almost all his Senate Republican colleagues blocked a motion to end debate on the nomination of Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (roll call). Tom Harkin and all but one Senate Democrat voted for the cloture motion. A 40-year-old law professor at the University of California in Berkeley, Liu had strong academic and legal credentials. Conservatives opposed his liberal policy views as well as his criticism of President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. During his confirmation hearing in March, Liu said the conclusion of his 2006 testimony against Alito showed “poor judgment.”

Liu would have been the only Asian-American on the 9th Circuit panel, which covers territory where more 40 percent of Asian-Americans live. Some observers have suggested that Republicans wanted to keep Liu off the appeals bench to prevent him from being a future U.S. Supreme Court nominee. (Similar concerns were raised about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when President Bill Clinton nominated her for an appeals court judgeship in the 1990s.) President Barack Obama has drawn criticism for the “slow pace” of his judicial nominations, but he had nominated Liu three times for this post.

Liu was the second high-profile Obama appointee filibustered this month. On May 9, Grassley and most of his Senate Republican colleagues blocked a motion to end debate on the nomination of James Cole for deputy attorney general. The president had nominated Cole for the position in May 2010, naming him as one of six recess appointees in December after Republicans long delayed considering his nomination.

Cole has extensive experience in private practice and in various Justice Department positions. He is best known for being the House Ethics Committee special counsel who investigated then Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. Gingrich ultimately paid a $300,000 fine for breaking House ethics rules; Cole discussed that investigation at length in this 1997 interview.

Grassley didn’t mention the Gingrich investigation in his lengthy prepared floor statement opposing Cole’s nomination. Grassley cited the Justice Department’s failure to cooperate with investigations into whistleblower allegations, as well as a 2002 op-ed piece Cole wrote advocating criminal trials in U.S. civilian courts rather than military tribunals for terrorism suspects. Finally, Grassley criticized Cole’s work as an independent consultant hired in 2004 to monitor the insurance giant AIG’s compliance with a securities fraud settlement.

The least convincing part of Grassley’s statement on Cole was this: “I have been consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years.” Trouble is, President George W. Bush “made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.” I do not recall Grassley filibustering a Bush nominee for any position.

Grassley may have been especially upset by Obama’s December 2010 batch of recess appointees because they included Norm Eisen for U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic. The U.S. had been without an ambassador to that country for two years, and Grassley was the lone senator holding up Eisen’s nomination. He “accused Eisen of improperly firing an inspector general for partisan political reasons”; Eisen denied that claim. In January, Grassley and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa wrote to White House Counsel Bob Bauer, calling Eisen’s appointment “particularly inappropriate.”

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added Grassley’s official statements on the Goodwin Liu nomination and the failed cloture vote. I also added the full prepared floor statement from Grassley on May 18, explaining his reasons for opposing Liu. These prepared remarks do not include statements Grassley made on the Senate floor that day, asking rhetorically whether Liu thinks “we’re the communist-run China.” Speaking in the chamber, Grassley suggested that by discussing how conservatives use terms like  “free enterprise” and “private ownership of property” as code words, Liu was implying that “if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place.”

A bill to expand offshore drilling for oil failed to advance in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among 42 Republicans who voted to proceed with considering the Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011 (roll call). Five Republicans joined every Democrat present, including Tom Harkin, in voting against the motion, which needed 60 votes to pass.

This bill was written as the Republican way to address high gasoline prices, in contrast with Democratic efforts to repeal oil company tax breaks. Although oil market experts agree that more drilling in the outer shelf won’t affect prices at the pump, I am surprised that no Senate Democrats backed yesterday’s motion to proceed. When the House of Representatives approved a different offshore drilling bill two weeks ago, a large chunk of the Democratic caucus (including Iowa’s Leonard Boswell) voted with Republicans.

In other Senate news, Grassley hasn’t announced how he will vote on House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s budget: “[Grassley] said the burden is on Senate Democrats to explain why they haven’t introduced their own alternative budget.” I would be shocked if Grassley voted against Ryan’s plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn’t whipping his colleagues to vote for the legislation, probably because Democrats plan to make proposed Medicare reforms the centerpiece of the 2012 election campaign. But Grassley doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected.

A Republican-led filibuster blocked Senate consideration today of a bill that would end “tax breaks for the five largest oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.” Click here for more detail on tax breaks that would be eliminated. The 52 to 48 vote in favor of proceeding with the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” failed because 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster. The roll call shows that Iowa’s Chuck Grassley voted against the motion to proceed, as did all but two Senate Republicans. Tom Harkin voted for considering the bill, as did all but three Democrats.

I’m all for ending oil company subsidies, but this bill was about optics rather than good energy policy. Andrew Restuccia wrote in The Hill,

Democrats’ pledge to continue pushing the bill signals that they view the effort as a winning political issue amid $4-a-gallon gas, soaring oil company profits and growing concern about the deficit. […]

Democrats say the bill would save $21 billion over the course of 10 years, savings that can be used to reduce the deficit at a time of increased belt-tightening.

Those talking points would be more convincing if party leaders had genuinely tried to end oil subsidies when Democrats controlled the U.S. House and had close to 60 votes in the Senate. It also makes no sense to focus this bill on the biggest oil companies, rather than the sector as a whole. Democrats apparently wrote the bill that way because of those companies’ large profits in the first quarter of this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told journalists today that he will press for ending oil companies’ tax breaks as part of legislation on raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling yesterday and won’t be able to pay all its bills if Congress does not act to raise the ceiling by August 2. I believe President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are playing a losing game by making budget negotiations part of a deal on raising the debt ceiling. When it was time to raise the government’s borrowing limit in 1995, President Bill Clinton wisely refused to let Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added a statement Grassley released on May 17, calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to approve the proposed Keystone XL Canadian pipeline project. Grassley depicts that project as a way for the Obama administration to help reduce the cost of gasoline. But an analysis commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy earlier this year suggested that building this pipeline might cause oil and therefore gasoline prices to rise in the Midwest. Environmental groups have raised many objections to the Keystone XL project as well.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve also added below excerpts from a report by the Congressional Research Service on “the extent to which proposed tax changes on the oil industry are likely to affect domestic gasoline prices.” The report briefly explains the five tax breaks that would be repealed under the bill senators filibustered.

Senator Tom Harkin raised an important question yesterday when speaking to Ed Tibbetts of the Quad-City Times:

Harkin said he’s previously called for an immediate exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are scheduled to leave in 2014.

“I think that timeline should be moved up,” he said in an interview. “I mean why are we in Afghanistan now? I thought we were in Afghanistan at the beginning to find Osama bin Laden. OK, that’s over with. Now, why are we in Afghanistan? Are we there to build a modern, 21st-century democracy?”

Senator Chuck Grassley told Tibbetts that he doesn’t seek any change in the U.S. approach to battling terrorists:

Grassley said bin Laden hasn’t been al-Qaida’s operational leader for years, just its inspirational head.

“The threat for terrorist activity is as great as ever,” he said. “It’s a setback for al-Qaida, without a doubt, but probably a temporary setback.”

I suspect Grassley is closer to the truth than White House chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who on Monday compared the terrorist group to a “mortally wounded tiger”:

“We are hoping to bury the rest of al-Qaeda along with bin Laden,” Brennan told reporters.

“This is a strategic blow to al-Qaeda. It is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, blow to lead to its demise. But we are determined to destroy it.”

I don’t see how the massive U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (more than 100,000 troops) will further this goal when Al Qaeda operatives are working in many countries.

Escalating military operations in Afghanistan has cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars as well as many lives. I still believe it will eventually be viewed as one of President Barack Obama’s biggest mistakes. Members of Congress should insist on answers to Harkin’s questions. If past experience is any guide, though, Obama will keep getting blank checks to fund war.

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.

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 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.  

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.