Between fundraising events on his multistate August bus trip, Minority Leader John Boehner began to transition from being the lead agitator for the minority party to the role he hopes to fill next year: Speaker of the House.
The Ohio Republican’s recent speeches in Cleveland and Milwaukee focused more on policy than politics — a sign, some Republicans say, that Boehner is trying to demonstrate he is more than just a prolific fundraiser and political strategist.

One senior GOP aide said that a Speaker doesn’t necessarily need strong policy credentials to be successful at the job, but that Boehner appears to be using the speeches to raise his national profile. “He is creating that aura of ‘I’m the guy in charge,’” the aide said.

Others say he is also trying to prepare the ground for the new Republican “governing agenda,” scheduled to be released at the end of the month.

During an Aug. 24 speech in Cleveland, Boehner talked at length about the economy and called on President Barack Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and top economic adviser Larry Summers.

Although the content of Boehner’s speech dealt with many of the same economic themes Republicans have been promoting most of the year, his targets shifted from House Democrats to Obama’s administration.

The White House noticed the change, and Vice President Joseph Biden mocked Boehner’s comments at an event in Washington the same day. On Friday, the White House announced that Obama would go to Cleveland, “the city where Minority Leader Boehner recently detailed the Republican economic agenda,” this week to rebut the GOP’s economic proposals.

Democrats have criticized Boehner’s speeches as being long on rhetoric and short on details of how Republicans would handle the economy if the GOP gains control of the House.

A week later, Boehner continued his assault on Obama, criticizing the administration’s handling of national security issues and accusing the White House of repeatedly putting politics ahead of the safety of the country.

Boehner delivered his Aug. 31 speech at the American Legion National Convention in Milwaukee, hours before Obama’s prime-time address from the Oval Office to formally announce the end of combat operations in Iraq.

Those close to Boehner said the fact that his speech fell on the same day as Obama’s address was a scheduling coincidence, not an attempt to pre-empt the president.

House Minority Leader John Boehner has taken several steps to ensure that if the Republicans take back the House in November, he will take the gavel from Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
For years, Boehner, now in his 10th term, has been seen as an effective fundraiser and a successful leader among his colleagues, but not a master of in-depth policy analysis.

In August, Boehner traveled to at least nine states and attended a series of private fundraisers for more than a dozen candidates. As of July 31, his political action committee, the Freedom Project, had raised $2.4 million, most of which he has distributed to other candidates and party committees.

Republican pollster David Winston said Boehner’s speeches were meant to lay the groundwork for the new agenda Republicans plan to unveil at the end of the month.

Republicans have spent the summer soliciting ideas from the public and other sources through the agenda-setting America Speaking Out project.

“Boehner has been comfortable with policy for quite a while,” Winston said. “When he was chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, he was dealing with very complicated issues in a very direct way.”

Winston said Boehner’s position in leadership might have taken him out of the day-to-day policy debates, but his interest and his knowledge were always there.

John Feehery, a former leadership staffer and president of the Feehery Group, agreed Boehner has no need to bulk up his policy profile.

“The speeches have very effectively put the Obama administration on the defensive,” Feehery said. “Boehner’s policy credentials are probably more robust than any leader of either party tracing back to Bob Michel. He was very effective as chairman of the Ed and Labor Committee, and I think he will take that experience into the Speaker’s office should the Republicans get there.”

Aside from his recent speeches, Boehner has taken a number of steps to ensure his grasp on the gavel if Republicans win big in November.

Boehner began to talk about becoming Speaker in February during a speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Ladies and gentlemen, if you help elect a Republican Congress this November, and I’m fortunate enough to be elected Speaker of the House, I pledge to you right here and now: We’re going to run the House differently,” Boehner said.

In April, Boehner and the National Republican Congressional Committee quietly founded a joint fundraising effort called the Boehner for Speaker Committee. As of the June 30 filing deadline, Boehner for Speaker had raised $570,300.

Since he defeated Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) in 2006 in the race to replace former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Boehner has moved steadily to protect his position, filling important leadership and committee posts with allies.

Should Boehner become Speaker, it would be the culmination of a decade-long climb back to power after he was forced out of his spot as Republican Conference chairman following the 1998 elections.

Boehner also has votes of confidence from the Republican establishment outside the House, with prominent leaders saying that the Ohio Republican would help steer the party in the right direction.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) wrote in his weekly newsletter last week that Boehner’s history as a small-business owner and as a member of Gingrich’s leadership team made him a good fit to lead Congress into better economic times.

“By controlling spending and cutting taxes under the Gingrich Congress, job creation soared while the budget was balanced, leading to over $600 billion of federal debt being paid,” Gingrich wrote. “John remembers these principles well.”

One GOP strategist attributed Boehner’s higher profile to the increased likelihood Republicans could take over the House, rather than the content of his speeches.

“He’s doing exactly what the leader of the party should do,” the strategist said. “His timing has been great. ... He has put the party in a position to take advantage of the wave that is coming.”

CANTON, Ohio — $1.50 still gets you a day of downtown parking in this rusty town of 78,000 residents, where the unemployment rate hovers well north of the national average and local business leaders say there are few reasons to be optimistic.

“We’ve come out of the recession, but we haven’t had a dramatic uptick,” Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce executive Steven Katz said in a recent interview at his Main Street office. “We’re really still hunkered down.”

Such sentiment from the local business community is complicating freshman Democratic Rep. John Boccieri’s 2010 re-election chances in this historically Republican district. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, narrowly won the district, and Republicans represented the district for 58 years before moderate Rep. Ralph Regula (R) retired two years ago.

After casting tough “yay” votes for health care reform, energy and spending legislation, Boccieri acknowledged that there will be one thing on his constituents’ minds when they head into the voting booth Nov. 2. “It’s about the economy,” he said in an interview. “They want to know about jobs.”

The downturn in this area has been a long time in the making. While the Pro Football Hall of Fame may attract a steady stream of tourists, this Buckeye State town has only two-thirds of the permanent residents it had in 1950, when Cleveland — an hour’s drive north — was the nation’s seventh largest city and a key stop along a Great Lakes shipping corridor that stretched from Buffalo, N.Y., to Detroit to Chicago.

And plenty of overgrown lots, abandoned factories and rows of decrepit trailer homes in Canton reveal few signs of a burgeoning rebirth. Katz said there isn’t much evidence in the local economy of the roughly $127 million in stimulus money that Democrats have directed to Stark County.

“I’m not sure how much filtered down to the business community,” he said. “Businesses in general are worried about the uncertainty coming from Washington.”

At a roundtable with voters Friday morning, Boccieri repeated the White House’s line that Democrats inherited the economic mess from the previous administration and that it will take years to reverse it. Still, he poked his party leaders for over-promising the immediate effect of legislation such as the stimulus bill, which continues to work its way through the economy.

“When I walked through the door on day one, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month,” Boccieri told the dozen or so constituents who joined him at Luna’s Restaurant & Deli in his hometown of Alliance, Ohio. The stimulus “wasn’t the economic panacea some people claimed it was. I never sold it that way.”

Boccieri’s years as an Air Force pilot and athlete are obvious on the campaign trail. Although he lets an occasional “awesome” slip, the lawmaker appears to be a disciplined campaigner who sticks to his script. In this GOP-leaning district, he also accepts that unpopular votes on the final health care bill, as well as a proposal that would cap carbon emissions, may cost him his job.

“If I’m not elected again, I’ll do something else,” he told a crowd of mostly seniors that gathered for the morning question-and-answer session. “I’m not here to warm a seat.”

In Boccieri’s district, even the local community center is having difficulties keeping the lights on. As he led a tour of the Foltz Community Center of Eastern Canton, retired IBM executive Dale Brunner said the recession forced the organization to lay off its only full-time manager. There’s been no significant rebound to the nonprofit organization’s outlook in recent months.

“Quit spending money,” Brunner told Boccieri during the tour. “We’re at the point where we’re like Italy, Brazil and Argentina.”

Boccieri’s challenger, local businessman Jim Renacci (R), agreed that the stimulus’s questionable effects and a continued lack of jobs in the area are fueling the anti-incumbent fervor in this Congressional district. Chatting with a reporter during a recent Stark County Republican Party barbecue, Renacci said local voters are miffed that Democrats keep chasing bad financial decisions with even more of citizens’ tax dollars.

“You can’t spend your way into prosperity, whether you’re in government, business or a family,” he said. “They’re fed up with big government.”

But the lesser-known Renacci may need to spend mightily to make his challenge known in a district where candidates have to fork over $250,000 a week on television ads to get their message out. In an interview, Renacci declined to say how much of his personal money he’s willing to devote, but the National Republican Congressional Committee is expected to run ads on his behalf in the expensive media market.

“As the election moves forward, we’re going to do what’s necessary to win,” Renacci said last week.

Still, Boccieri has proved to be an apt fundraiser in his first term, raking in an impressive $1.4 million for his re-election bid as of July, including $772,000 from political action committees and his Democratic colleagues in the House, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

After loaning his campaign $305,000, Renacci had $663,000 in cash as of July 1, FEC records show. This month, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees plunked down $750,000 for two rounds of television ads that hit Renacci on taxation issues.

“Renacci hid $13 million and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties,” a narrator says in one AFSCME ad. “What do you think?”

The Republican challenger, who is suing the union for defamation over its ad, also plans to make Democratic leadership a key plank of his midterm election challenge. At the recent Stark County GOP gathering, the one-time local mayor said Boccieri’s bid this fall is a mandate on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and her leadership in the House.

“Vote to remove your Representative: Nancy Pelosi,” Renacci told the crowd last week.

Also on hand for the GOP gathering was Boccieri’s predecessor, Regula. An 18-term GOP moderate who called it quits by not running in 2008, Regula said voters in Ohio’s 16th district are worried about recently passed Democratic initiatives in the House, particularly an environmental cap-and-trade measure.

“Our industries use a lot of electricity,” Regula said.

The former lawmaker also agreed about the role the economy will play in this election. He added that there’s an enthusiasm gap for his successor this year.

“Turnout is going to be the key factor,” Regula said. “They’re distressed with the way things are going, and they’re concerned with the way we’re spending money.”

Democrats are fighting to hold two seats in Washington state this year — the open 3rd district and Patty Murray’s Senate seat — and Tuesday’s primaries could offer the clearest evidence yet of where things stand in the Democratic-leaning state.

The dramatics of the Senate race are all in the vote totals registered in the fairly new “top two” primary, which the state is using in federal elections for just the second time.

Murray and Republican Dino Rossi, a two-time unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate, are widely expected to advance to the general election. The only questions that remain are their vote totals and what can be gleaned from them in a contest that pits candidates of every party against each other with the top two vote-getters advancing — no matter their party label.

Gaming some on expectation, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a memo Monday saying it expects Rossi to take at least 46 percent of the vote, despite facing upstart challenges from former professional football player Clint Didier and inventor Paul Akers, who joined forces against Rossi late in the campaign.

That number is based on Rossi’s vote total in a crowded 2008 gubernatorial primary field. Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire and Rossi advanced to the general election with 48 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Gregoire went on to win, 53 percent to 47 percent.

While Didier and Akers hardly caused trouble for Rossi’s primary prospects, Democrats believe the two conservatives forced Rossi to move to the right, a potentially dangerous place to be in a state that President Barack Obama carried with 58 percent.

“While Rossi is expected to beat his conservative opponents, make no mistake about it: the damage in the primary is already done. Rossi is running as an unabashed far right conservative,” DSCC Executive Director J.B. Poersch wrote in the memo.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are lowering Murray’s expectations, with one close to the campaign saying they expect her to finish in the low 40s. The thinking goes that with Murray a shoe-in to make the general, a portion of her base will either not participate or perhaps vote for one of Rossi’s top GOP competitors.

Either way, a vote total below 45 percent could set off some alarms within the party. The previous poll in the race, taken in late July by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, found Murray at 47 percent and the three Republicans totaling 47 percent, with Rossi taking 33 percent.

State GOP Chairman Luke Esser expects Murray to finish “a fair bit below 50 percent, which for any incumbent — especially a three-term incumbent — is cause for concern.”

Obama will be in Seattle on Tuesday headlining a fundraising luncheon and private reception for Murray. Esser said that although the president’s visit will be great for Murray’s coffers, the event helps Republicans in the long run by “cementing in the minds of voters that Patty Murray is part of what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.”

State Democratic Chairman Dwight Pelz said he’s “not putting a lot of stock in” the results, whether they appear positive or negative for Murray. “With the ‘top two’ and a contested race between the Republicans, it’s hard to draw any conclusions,” he said.

“This is a blue state, and our job is to get her elected in an anti-incumbent year that favors Republicans,” Pelz added. “We think we can make that happen.”

In the coastal 3rd district, Democratic Rep. Brian Baird’s retirement opened up a moderate seat ripe for Republican picking. Since being elected to Congress in 1998, Baird was never elected with less than 55 percent. However, George W. Bush carried the district by 2 points in 2000 and 2004, while Obama won it by 7 points in 2008.

Pelz called it a “classic American swing district,” adding that “if Democrats slide in national polls over the next two to three months, we’re going to have trouble there, no question about it.”

Attempting to hold the seat for Democrats is Denny Heck, a businessman and former state House Majority Leader who is running against Democratic-controlled Washington, D.C. His campaign theme: “Give ’Em Heck.”

“Here in our Washington, we all feel the same,” Heck says in his lone TV ad of the primary. “We hear politicians in Washington, D.C., talking about creating jobs and think, ‘What do you really know about it?’”

Democrats privately say that state Rep. Jaime Herrera, a former legislative aide to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), is the strongest of the Republican contenders. Battling Heck and Herrera for a ticket to the general election are Republicans David Castillo, a former deputy assistant U.S. secretary of Veterans Affairs, and David Hedrick, a tea party activist.

“We’re in a blue area that is very conservative,” said Pacific County Republican Chairwoman Nansen Malin, who supports Herrera. “Even Heck is running on a ‘Give Congress Heck’ mantra. The voters want to replace Baird with a more fiscal conservative.”

Another race the national parties are watching is in the eastern exurbs of Seattle, where Republican Rep. Dave Reichert is again fighting to hold the Democratic-leaning 8th district. It’s one of nearly 10 districts Democrats have at least an outside chance of picking up in November.

After two straight unsuccessful challenges by liberal Darcy Burner, another wealthy former Microsoft executive is aiming for Reichert. This time it’s Suzan DelBene, whose campaign is playing up her business experience in this high-unemployment election year.

Reichert remains a popular figure from his role in capturing the “Green River Killer” while serving as King County sheriff, but he has yet to entrench himself in this difficult district for Republicans. Plus, the formerly friendly Seattle Times editorial board recently endorsed both DelBene and Republican Yarrow Point Town Councilman Tim Dillon over Reichert.

The three races headline the state’s second top two primary in a major election cycle. In 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state’s 70-year-old blanket primary unconstitutional. The new, nonpartisan iteration of the blanket format was challenged in court until the state won an appeal from the Supreme Court in March 2008.

The primary is nearly all by mail, as only Pierce County still offers voters polling places. The secretary of state’s office will begin posting election results on its website at 11 p.m. EST.

Senate Democrats ran for the exits armed with a few legislative victories and a handful of defeats going into the five-week summer recess.

Members of the majority, who will spend August drawing a sharp contrast to Republicans on the economic recovery, celebrated the passage of a $26 billion funding measure for schools and cash-strapped states. They cheered the confirmation of Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, and the unanimous approval of a child nutrition bill pushed by Agriculture Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.).

“This has been a good week for children in Nevada and across America,” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement. “After Democrats fought to prevent hundreds of thousands of teachers from being laid off earlier today, we led passage of much-needed child nutrition legislation this afternoon.”

Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) also won a surprising victory Thursday evening, when the chamber unanimously approved a $600 million funding measure for 1,500 new Border Patrol and immigration agents and for unmanned aerial border patrols. He has pursued a comprehensive immigration package for more than a year, but the effort has stalled in the face of near-unanimous GOP opposition.

Other Democratic priorities were left on the table. Reid indicated Thursday that the chamber will take up a small-business jobs package, which faltered in recent weeks, in the first week back in session in September. He filed a cloture motion on a fresh substitute for the bill before adjourning Thursday night.

“We believe we have the necessary votes to prevail on that,” he said. “We have problems with time. ... Without getting into the intricacies of how I plan to move forward, we are going to move forward — it’s just a question of when on small business.”

The chamber cleared 51 executive and judicial nominations before adjourning, including that of James Clapper to be director of national intelligence. Republicans briefly threatened Clapper’s nomination in their quest for an intelligence report on the threat factor of detainees at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Sen. John McCain dropped his hold on the nomination Tuesday, after the Arizona Republican received a classified intelligence report from the Obama administration.

Other high-profile nominees to win confirmation Thursday night were James Jeffrey to be ambassador of Iraq and Gen. James Mattis to replace Gen. David Petraeus as head of U.S. Central Command.

A dozen other nominations, however, were returned to the White House, including Donald Berwick’s to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Republicans were angered when Obama used a recess appointment to install Berwick to the post in July. That appointment expires at the end of next year, and Obama sent Berwick’s nomination to serve a full term to the Senate last month.

Others included in the return pile were Goodwin Liu, the controversial nominee to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Peter Diamond, nominated to the board of governors of the Federal Reserve; and John McConnell, a prominent Democratic donor tapped to serve as a district judge in Rhode Island. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) made a last-ditch effort to prevent McConnell’s nomination from being sent back but was not successful.

Also during wrap-up, Reid cleared a resolution honoring Washington sports legend Manute Bol, the 7-foot-7-inch Sudanese powerhouse who played center for the Washington Bullets and died in June at the age of 47.

The judicial nomination of Jane Stranch to serve on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be considered when the Senate returns Sept. 13. The chamber will be in session for a four-week stretch that runs to the Columbus Day recess, when Members will head home to campaign in the final days before the midterm elections.

Among the priorities on the legislative horizon are the fiscal 2011 defense authorization, which contains language to repeal the military’s ban on gay service members; the issue of whether to significantly change or eliminate the Senate’s use of secret holds; and how to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush.

Any bipartisan deal to finish work on a Senate GOP small-business lending bill will likely have to wait until September, sources in both parties said Thursday.

Senators have been at an impasse for two weeks over how many amendments to allow to the bill and which proposals each party would be able to offer. Talks have been virtually nonexistent this week, one GOP source said.

Majority Leader Harry Reid strongly hinted Thursday that he had run out of time in this work period, given Senators are slated to leave town for the five-week August recess Friday.

“We believe we have the necessary votes to prevail on that,” the Nevada Democrat said. “We have problems with time. ... Without getting into the intricacies of how I plan to move forward, we are going to move forward — it’s just a question of when on small business.”

Reid held out hope that he could still get an agreement with Republicans to pass a child nutrition bill on Thursday, and he said he would try to pass a measure funding an Agriculture Department discrimination suit with black farmers. However, Reid noted the only way he could get the black farmers deal done Thursday or Friday would be by unanimous consent. That route is unlikely to succeed, given objections.

The Majority Leader also noted he would try to set the stage for Senate debate on the defense authorization bill in September.

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 21, 2010; A01

The Senate broke a months-long stalemate Tuesday over a plan to restore emergency jobless benefits to millions of people who have been out of work for more than six months, voting to advance the measure over Republican objections that it would add $34 billion to the nation's bloated budget deficit.

The 60 to 40 vote all but assures that the bill will pass the Senate when a final vote is taken Wednesday. The measure would then go back to the House, where leaders expect to quickly approve it and send it to the White House for President Obama's signature later this week.

Once signed, the bill would revive benefits for more than 2.5 million people whose checks were cut off when the program expired June 2. It also would ensure that up to 99 weeks of income support would be available to a broader universe of jobless workers through the end of November.

While jobless benefits have traditionally received bipartisan support in periods of high unemployment, the current round has been caught in a crossfire of partisan sniping about the deficit as lawmakers position themselves for this fall's midterm elections. In the wake of the recession, U.S. policymakers and their counterparts abroad have struggled to create jobs and bolster a sluggish recovery without adding unduly to national debt. Rising debt loads have sparked a crisis in Europe.

Pointing to growing public anxiety about U.S. debt, which now stands at more than $13 trillion, most Republicans refused to back the extension of jobless benefits unless Democrats agreed to cover its cost using unspent funds from last year's economic stimulus package.

"There's no debate in the Senate about whether we should pass a bill -- everyone agrees that we should," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "What we do not support -- and we make no apologies for -- is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control."

President Obama and fellow Democrats, meanwhile, have accused Republicans of turning their backs on the unemployed while pushing to extend tax cuts for the rich that would increase deficits by 20 times as much over the next decade.

"I will continue to fight for economic policies that will lead us out of this mess, and press Congress to act on more proposals to create new American jobs and strengthen our recovery," Obama said in a statement. "Americans who are struggling to find a job and get back on their feet deserve more than the same political game-playing and failed policies that helped cause this recession."

In the end, two Republicans -- Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- voted with Democrats to break the impasse; a lone Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted to continuethe GOP filibuster. The clinching vote was cast by Sen. Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.), who was appointed Friday to replace Robert C. Byrd, who died last month at the age of 92.

Moments after Vice President Biden swore him into office, the chamber's newest member walked onto the Senate floor with Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), approached the clerk's desk at the front of the chamber and soberly mouthed the word "aye." Friends and family in the Senate gallery broke into applause.

"That will be a vote that helps millions of Americans," Goodwin said afterward, adding he was "privileged to have played a small role" in passing the legislation.

With the unemployment rate at 9.5 percent, 8.7 million people were receiving jobless benefits at the end of June. A little more than half received state benefits, which are typically available for 26 weeks. The rest were receiving extended benefits financed by the federal government, which are due to run out soon unless the bill before the Senate passes. The Labor Department estimates that 2.5 million people had been cut off by the end of last week.

The bill before the Senate would extend benefits retroactively. While state laws vary, Labor officials and advocates for the unemployed said some people could expect to see lump-sum payments covering lost income back to June 2. Even if the bill passes, many people will have to wait two to four weeks before checks are restored, said Rick McHugh, a staff attorney for the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for jobless workers.

"I'm sure it seems important to people in Washington, who are fighting over these budget points of order, but it doesn't look very important to people in the real world," said McHugh, who works in Michigan, where the jobless rate is more than 13 percent. "It's not a pleasant process to get calls from these folks who are losing their houses and losing their health insurance and taking their kids out of college and making the choices people are being forced to make in this economy."

Passage of the jobless benefits bill would mark a modest victory for Obama and congressional Democrats, who have been struggling since February to push through a significant extension of the program. The provision was originally part of a much larger package of fresh spending on the economy, but Democrats have been forced repeatedly to pare it back as conservative Democrats joined Republicans in arguing that the nation could ill afford another big hike in the national debt.

Democrats have dropped from the bill an extension of $25-a-week bonus payments that were added to unemployment checks under last year's stimulus package, and have little hope of extending subsidies that pay up to 65 percent of COBRA health insurance premiums. Obama's push for billions of dollars in state aid has also been scaled back, and Senate Democrats were in talks with Republicans late Tuesday about ditching Obama's proposal to increase lending to small businesses from another pending initiative.

Staff writer Perry Bacon contributed to this report.

By Perry Bacon, Jr.
Washington Post staff writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010; 3:10 PM

The Senate Democrats finally have their 59th vote.

Carte Goodwin was officially sworn into office Tuesday, replacing Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) who had served in this seat from 1959 until his death last month. The arrival of the 36-year-old, who will become the youngest member of the Senate, was much anticipated, as Democrats expect Goodwin to help break a month-long impasse between the two parties on extending unemployment benefits.

With the votes of Goodwin and a pair of Republicans, Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Democrats are likely to pass a provision that would extend unemployment benefits to people out of work through November, at a cost of more than $30 billion. Republicans have said Congress should offset this spending to avoid increase the deficit, while Democrats argue the high unemployment rate constitutes effectively a national emergency and should not have to be offset.

Goodwin is unlikely to make much of an impact in the Senate beyond this vote. He was tapped essentially as a placeholder, as West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin announced on Tuesday he would seek election in November to fill the remainder of Byrd's term, which ends in 2012.

Goodwin, who served as general counsel to Manchin from 2005 to 2009, ruled out a run for himself on Friday when he was appointed.

A far-reaching Wall Street regulation bill is headed to President Barack Obama’s desk after the Senate gave final approval to the measure on a 60-39 vote Thursday.

Thirty-eight Republicans voted against the measure along with Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.). Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of the measure: Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

The financial reform bill is intended to address the circumstances that led to the near-collapse of financial markets in 2008.

Before the vote, Democrats overcame two procedural hurdles that required them to secure 60 votes. Brown, Snowe, Collins and vote-switcher Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) were the keys to getting the necessary votes to both beat back the GOP-led filibuster attempt and a budget point of order against the bill.

Cantwell opposed the Senate version of the bill but declared nearly two weeks ago that the House-Senate conference report largely addressed her concerns about regulation of complicated financial instruments known as derivatives.

Democrats have argued the bill will not only prevent another financial crisis from occurring but also will obviate the need for another Wall Street bailout like the $700 billion fund Congress passed in the fall of 2008.

But Republicans contend the package would create a new overbearing regulation structure — particularly when it comes to consumer protection — and could end up further restricting the credit markets.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told the political blog Talking Points Memo before the vote for passage that the measure ought to be repealed.

In praising Congress for passing the bill, Obama addressed Boehner’s stance. “Now, already the Republican leader in the House has called for repeal of this reform,” he said. “I would suggest that America can’t afford to go backwards, and I think that’s how most Americans feel, as well. We can’t afford another financial crisis, just as we’re digging out from the last one.”

Bill

Employee Misclassification Prevention Act - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to require every person to: (1) keep records of non-employees (contractors) who perform labor or services (except substitute work), including through an entity such as a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation, for remuneration; and (2) provide certain notice to each new employee and new non-employee, including their classification as anemployee or non-employee and information concerning their rights under the law.

Makes it unlawful for any person to: (1) discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual (including an employee) who has opposed any practice, or filed a complaint or instituted any proceeding related to this Act, including with respect to an individual's status as an employee or non-employee; and (2) fail to classify accurately an employee or non-employee.

Doubles the amount of liquidated damages for maximum hours, minimum wage, and notice of classification violations by an employer. Subjects a person who: (1) violates such requirements (including recordkeeping requirements) to a civil penalty of up to $1,100; or (2) repeatedly or willfully violates such requirements to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation.

Directs the Secretary of Labor to establish a webpage on the Department of Labor website that summarizes the rights of employees under this Act and other appropriate information.

Amends the Social Security Act to require, as a condition for a federal grant for the administration of state unemployment compensation, for the state's unemployment compensation law to include a provision for: (1) auditing programs that identify employers that have not registered under the state law or that are paying unreported compensation where the effect is to exclude employees from unemployment compensation coverage; and (2) establishing administrative penalties for misclassifying employees or paying unreported unemployment compensation to employees.

Requires any office, administration, or division of the Department of Labor to report any misclassification of an employee by a person subject to the FLSA that it discovers to the Department's Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Authorizes the WHD to report such information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) continues to refuse to endorse a newly negotiated Wall Street reform bill, despite Democratic attempts Tuesday to fix the measure to his liking.

In a statement Wednesday, Brown said he does “appreciate the conference committee revisiting the Wall Street reform bill” and removing a $19 billion tax on banks and hedge funds. Though House and Senate conferees had announced a deal last week, opposition from Brown — as well as Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — to the bank tax forced them back to the negotiating table Tuesday evening.

But Brown quashed any hopes that Senate Democratic leaders may have had about voting on the conference report before leaving for the July Fourth recess.

“Over the July recess, I will continue to review this important bill. I remain committed to putting in place safeguards to prevent another financial meltdown, ensure that consumers are protected, and that this bill is paid for without new taxes.”

House Democratic leaders have been pushing to have a vote this week on the bicameral compromise. It was unclear whether the uncertainty over Brown’s vote, as well as the votes of Snowe and Collins, would cause the House to delay passage. Brown, Snowe and Collins joined Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in voting for the original Senate version of the financial reform measure.

Even with all three of those Republican votes, Senate Democrats would still be one vote short of the 60 needed to beat back a near-certain GOP filibuster, because of the Monday death of 92-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

If Senate Democratic leaders cannot secure the vote of at least one opponent of the bill — such as Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — they may have to wait until after West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) appoints Byrd’s replacement to hold the vote.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 25, 2010; 12:26 PM

Key House and Senate lawmakers approved far-reaching new financial rules early Friday after weeks of division, delay and frantic last-minute dealmaking. The dawn compromise set up a potential vote in both houses of Congress next week that could send the landmark legislation toPresident Obama by July 4.

The final and most arduous compromise began to fall into place just after midnight. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) agreed to scale back a provision that would have forced the nation's biggest banks to spin off their lucrative derivatives-dealing businesses.

The panel also reached accord on the "Volcker rule," named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. That measure would bar banks from trading with their own money, a practice known as proprietary trading.

Lawmakers pulled an all-nighter, wrapping up their work at 5:39 a.m. -- more than 20 messy, mind-numbing hours after they began Thursday morning.

"It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here," said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

Both the House and Senate must approve the compromise legislation before it can go to Obama for his signature.

Despite myriad changes in recent days, Democrats appear poised to deliver a final bill that largely reflects the administration's original blueprint unveiled almost precisely a year ago. Although it would not fundamentally alter the shape of Wall Street or break up the nation's largest firms, the legislation would establish broad new oversight of the financial system.

A new consumer protection bureau housed in the Federal Reserve would have independent funding, an independent leader and near-total autonomy to write and enforce rules. The government would have broad new powers to seize and wind down large, failing financial firms and to oversee the $600 trillion derivatives market. In addition, a council of regulators, headed by the Treasury secretary, would monitor the financial landscape for potential systemic risks.

"The finish line is in sight. The bill that has emerged from conference is strong," Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in a statement early Friday. "It will offer families the protections they deserve, help safeguard their financial security and give the businesses of America access to the credit they need to expand and innovate."

Obama, speaking to reporters before leaving for a meeting of global finance ministers and central bankers in Toronto, said the compromise legislation includes "90 percent of what I proposed when I took up this fight."

The president said he is committed to a "strong, robust financial sector" but wants to curb abuses and tighten oversight to make the financial system more transparent and safe.

"The reforms making their way through Congress will hold Wall Street accountable," Obama said, "so we can help prevent another financial crisis like the one that we're still recovering from."

On the House side, the final tally was 20 to 11 to approve the conference committee's report. On the Senate side, it was 7 to 5. The votes fell along party lines, earning no support from Republicans on the two panels.

Asked whether he expected the compromise legislation to pass the full Senate -- which on May 20 approved an earlier version, 59-39, with support from four Republicans -- Obama replied, "You bet."

Republican lawmakers who serve on the financial panels blasted the compromise bill. "This legislation is a failure on both counts," Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said in a statement that denounced the compromise as failing to address "shoddy underwriting practices" or problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "It will not encourage much-needed stability and confidence in our financial markets. It will not significantly reduce systemic risk in our financial sector."

Lincoln's provision on derivatives had for months remained a particularly thorny issue for Democrats, causing internal divisions that threatened to derail the massive legislation.

Although consumer advocates and many liberals supported her provision, it encountered stiff opposition from the Obama administration and some regulators, as well as from an influential bloc of moderate Democrats and House Democrats from New York, where much of the financial derivatives industry is concentrated.

Administration officials and Democratic leaders worked fervently to bridge the divide between Lincoln and those House Democrats. Top Treasury officials, including Deputy Secretary Neal Wolinand Michael Barr, an assistant secretary, roamed the Dirksen office building alongside White House economic adviser Diana Farrell, conferring with aides and key lawmakers. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, worked the committee room throughout Thursday.

Lincoln came and went from the hearing room, meeting with members of the centrist New Democrat Coalition to try to find common ground and huddling with Dodd (D-Conn.); Rep. Barney Frank(D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee; and other lawmakers.

In the very early morning hours Friday, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) -- chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a Lincoln supporter -- introduced a proposal that would compel banks to spin off only their riskiest derivatives trades, including particular forms of credit-default swaps, which are complex financial bets that exacerbated the financial crisis.

At the same time, the proposal would allow banks to hold onto certain derivatives trading related to interest rates, currency rates, gold and silver. They also would be allowed to continue trading in derivatives in order to hedge against their own risks.

Under the compromise, the derivatives operations that firms spin out of their federally insured banks could still be retained in a separately capitalized affiliate. In addition, firms would have two years to institute the new rules.

The Senate agreed to the compromise language just after 2:30 a.m.

The cavernous Dirksen 106 conference room remained packed at that hour, but it was a chaotic and cluttered mass of humanity. Lawmakers had stopped trying to conceal their yawns. Aides who had worn down their BlackBerry batteries recharged them for the home stretch. Trash cans spilled over with coffee cups and sandwich wrappers. Empty Fritos bags and plastic Diet Coke bottles littered the room, along with reams of paper -- old amendments, new amendments, handwritten amendments, amendments to amendments.

"So much for the paperless society," Frank quipped at one point.

In reaching a deal on the Volcker rule, negotiators adopted a provision that mirrors language previously offered by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), which would ban certain forms of proprietary trading and forbid firms from betting against securities they sell to clients. The Merkley-Levin measure never got a vote on the Senate floor.

"One goal of these limits is to reduce participation in high-risk activity that can cause significant losses at institutions which are central to the financial system," Dodd said. "A second goal is to end the use of low-cost funds, to which insured depositories have access, from subsidizing high-risk activity."

Under the agreement, firms would have up to two years to scale back their proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. Banks also would be barred from betting against their clients on certain investments deals.

Even as they worked to toughen the Volcker language, lawmakers agreed to an exemption at the behest of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), one of the four Republicans who voted for the earlier version of the financial regulation bill.

Brown, whose state is a hub of the asset-management industry, wanted the bill to allow banks to invest at least a small amount of capital in hedge funds and private equity investments. The measure would prohibit a banks from investing more than 3 percent of their capital in private equity or hedge funds. It was one of a number of provisions tailored to hold onto key votes as the bill heads toward final passage.

Lawmakers squared away a handful of other lingering issues late Thursday and early Friday.

They agreed to exempt the nation's 18,000 auto dealers from oversight by a new consumer financial protection watchdog, a striking legislative victory for one of the nation's most influential lobbying groups and a blow to consumer advocates and Democratic leaders who had long opposed such a loophole. "It is time for people like myself to concede that the votes are not there to give the consumer regulator any role in this," Frank said.

Lawmakers also voted to give shareholders more of a say on corporate governance, to place new restrictions on mortgage lending and to levy a risk-based assessment on large financial firms to help pay for the wide-ranging bill, which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would cost nearly $20 billion over the next decade.

Weary lawmakers wrapped up their work just after sunrise, only hours before Obama was scheduled to leave for Canada. Both Dodd and Frank said they hoped the passage of the legislation by their committees will help the United States lead the ongoing global effort to harmonize new financial safeguards.

"We've put in the hands of the president a very powerful set of tools for him to reassert American leadership in the world," Frank said.

One of the last motions Friday was to name the bill after the two chairmen, who had shepherded the legislation through the House and the Senate over the past year. At 5:07 a.m., they agreed unanimously that it would be known as the Dodd-Frank bill, and the sound of applause echoed down the empty hallways.

Post a Comment

A court decision to block the Obama administration’s six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico drew reactions all over the map on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) hailed U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman’s preliminary ruling and vowed “to strongly urge the administration not to appeal.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the administration would “immediately appeal” to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I have communicated with the president and the White house and [Interior] Secretary [Ken] Salazar by letter and public statement over the last two weeks that this blanket moratoria would have a worse economic effect on the Gulf than the spill itself,” Landrieu said on a call with reporters.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) also applauded Feldman’s decision, which Vitter said “recognizes that the president’s powers are certainly not unlimited and that this moratorium is wreaking havoc on jobs in Louisiana.”

But drilling opponents struck a starkly different tone. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) called the ruling Tuesday by the federal judge in New Orleans “shortsighted.”

“Our federal resources are stretched thin combating the BP catastrophe, and the coastal economy and natural resources are taking a beating,” he said in a statement. “President Obama made the right decision to halt dangerous deepwater drilling while additional safety tests can be conducted.”

Likewise, Rep. Ed Markey, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, blasted the “bad decision” to allow the 33 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to drill before a presidentially appointed commission releases its findings on safety hazards.

“We would be doing the oil rig workers and citizens of the Gulf a disservice if we did not put safety first with these few rigs,” the Massachusetts Democrat said. “The Obama administration is right to appeal, and I fully support that effort.”

Obama issued the six-month moratorium May 28 to give the safety commission time to review the events surrounding the April explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf.

The 43-member House-Senate conference committee last week worked through some differences between the two chambers’ bills, but lawmakers put off several of the toughest issues. They will focus closely on new consumer protection regulations and new powers over the $600-trillion market for financial derivatives.

“Interchange fees”: The conference is slated Tuesday to consider whether the Federal Reserve should have the authority to set “reasonable and proportional” fees paid by merchants and retailers to banks and credit unions that issue debit cards. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the main backer of the provision, is pushing hard to keep it in the final legislation. The House bill did not include the provision. Small banks and credit unions are lobbying aggressively against it, while merchants and retailers are pushing for it to remain.

- Derivatives “push out”: Big banks are lobbying hardest on a provision in the Senate bill that would require banks to push out their derivatives trading desks. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the main champion of the provision, sits on the conference committee and is loudly calling on lawmakers to retain it. Federal regulators and banks argue it would shift the multi-trillion-dollar derivatives market to less regulated firms.

A group of 43 centrist House Democrats called this week to remove the provision. Members of the New York congressional delegation and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are also urging Congress to oppose Lincoln’s effort.

Lincoln argues the provision would allow umbrella bank holding companies to own derivatives desks, but only outside of their traditional banking units. The aim is to prevent federal taxpayer assistance to derivatives dealers.

- “Volcker rule”: Banks are also lobbying against a provision that would ban proprietary trading at banks and limit their ability to sponsor or co-invest with hedge funds and other alternative funds. Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) want to strengthen the rule by making it more explicit in the legislation. They expressed confidence Thursday that lawmakers were generally headed in their direction.

- Auto dealer exemption: Auto dealers have lobbied for more than a year for an exemption from a new consumer financial protection regulator. They won their case in the House in December, but the Senate bill did not include the exemption. A group of 62 House Democrats called on conferees to include the exemption. The carve-out is opposed strongly by the White House, Defense Department and Treasury Department.

The conference committee last week took up a few issues they were unable to resolve fully. Among them:

- “Proxy access”: The Senate pushed to significantly alter a provision granting shareholders stronger power to name directors on corporate boards. The provision is a long-time goal of shareholders and institutional investors. The Senate proposal limits proxy access to shareholders who collectively own at least 5 percent of outstanding shares. The threshold was in neither House nor Senate provision, and sparked an outcry from investors groups.

The Council of Institutional Investors said the 5 percent ownership requirement undermines the goal of the provision. The group is pushing back hard on the last-minute change. The Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have lobbied against the proxy access provision.

- “Fiduciary Duty”: The House and Senate are split on whether broker-dealers and insurance agents should have the same fiduciary duty to their clients as financial planners. The House bill extended the fiduciary duty, while the Senate bill included a mandate for a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) study on the issue.

- State insurance regulations: The House and Senate are divided on the power of a new federal insurance office to negotiate international insurance agreements and then preempt state regulations. The Senate bill provides more scope for federal preemption, which is supported by some large insurers. Consumer advocacy groups and insurers that traditionally favor state-based insurance regulations favor the narrower definition in the House bill.

By Scott Wilson and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 16, 2010; A01

President Obama urged the nation Tuesday to rally behind legislation that would begin changing the way the country consumes and generates energy, saying the expanding oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is "the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now."

In his first Oval Office address, Obama compared the need to end the country's "addiction to fossil fuels" to its emergency preparations for World War II and the mission to the moon. Hours after the government sharply increased its estimate of how much oil is flowing into the gulf, the president warned that risks will continue to rise because "we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water." He called for fast Senate action on an energy bill that has already passed the House.

"There are costs associated with this transition, and some believe we can't afford those costs right now," Obama said. "I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security and our environment are far greater."

Even before the president addressed a prime-time television audience, congressional Republican leaders warned him not to use what he described as "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced" to further his political agenda. But beyond the urgency of his appeal, his remarks were largely an 18-minute compilation of what he has said about the spill over the past several weeks.

His audience this time extended well beyond the Gulf Coast, where he just concluded a two-day visit, to an electorate that mostly disapproves of the way he is handling the crisis.

The fact that Obama himself chose to deliver his message from the Oval Office underscored the extent of the disaster, both in terms of its environmental and economic impact on the gulf region and the political ramifications it holds in a midterm election year. The spill, which began April 20, has challenged the administration's cultivated image of competence and Obama's skill in using the right tone to discuss a widening environmental catastrophe that is in many ways out of his control.

The government released new figures Tuesday showing that far more oil is flowing from the seafloor than believed as recently as last week. The Flow Rate Technical Group said as much as 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons) of oil a day is escaping from the damaged well, a 50 percent increase from the last estimate.

BP announced plans earlier this week to capture 53,000 barrels (2.2 million gallons) of oil a day by the end of June. But the new figure highlights the extent of the challenge of plugging the leak, and the threat facing an increasingly frustrated and fearful Gulf Coast as the summer tourist season begins.

Obama is scheduled to meet Wednesday morning with BP executives to discuss response efforts and the establishment of escrow accounts to compensate those who the president said have been "harmed as a result of his company's recklessness."

He also announced the appointment of Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department official, to head the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible for regulating offshore drilling.

Senior administration officials said Obama's address -- which they described as coming at an "inflection point" in the crisis -- will help adjust the nation's focus from the immediate spill to a longer-term strategy for restoring the gulf region and changing the way the country uses energy. Obama said he has assigned Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, to draw up a long-term strategy for the gulf "as soon as possible."

Privately, one senior official said the speech was a direct effort to "wipe the slate clean," adding that the goal now is to "shift the conversation to something more future-oriented."

But Obama spoke only in general, often lofty terms about the need for Congress to pass energy reform legislation this year, a point he has made at least twice in the past month. He did not call for a price to be placed on carbon, even though one senior administration official said he thinks that is the most effective way to reduce U.S. energy consumption and protect against climate change.

A presidential push for energy reform could energize a dispirited Democratic base heading into the fall campaign season. Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama on a range of issues -- including the still-stumbling economy and his escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- and the president's top advisers consider energy and the environment issues where he could work to restore his standing. But administration officials doubt the energy bill has enough support to pass in the Senate.

"The votes don't exist now," one senior White House official said. "But he is going to press for it."

The Oval Office address was Obama's most pointed attempt since the spill began to explain how the crisis should be leveraged on behalf of long-term reform, and it could well be his last chance to do so this year on a national scale. He said he will listen to ideas from all parties, adding that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."

Until his national address, the president focused his attention mostly on the gulf itself, and he spoke hours after returning from his visit to Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle.

On his fourth and most extensive trip to the region, Obama toured staging areas being used in the response and met with local officials and business owners worried about the enormous slick offshore. He traveled by helicopter, ferry and motorcade along a seaside highway bordering white-sand beaches, booms floating offshore along much of the route. He spoke hopefully to many of the people he met, delivering a variety of pep talks while also warning that the Gulf Coast faces "painful" times ahead.

"The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight," Obama said. "Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude."

Republicans seized on the president's approach as further evidence of what they say is his over-reliance on the government to solve the nation's biggest challenges.

In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said that "the White House may view this oil spill as an opportunity to push its agenda in Washington, but Americans are more concerned about what it plans to do to solve the crisis at hand."

By Silla Brush - 06/14/10 08:25 PM ET
House Democrats want the Senate to accept stronger protections for state insurance regulations under the Wall Street overhaul bill.

The 2,000-page regulatory bill, now in a conference between House and Senate lawmakers, sets up a new federal office in the Treasury Department to monitor the industry and have a say on international insurance matters.

The Senate bill, which is the basis for the negotiations, provides broader powers than the bill approved by the House for the federal office to negotiate international insurance matters and override state rules.

House Democrats on Tuesday will seek to change the bill so it provides stronger judicial review procedures and a narrower scope of the type of international agreements that can be pre-empted. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) asked Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) to speak on Tuesday on behalf of the House version.

House and Senate lawmakers are looking to reconcile differences between the bills before the July 4 recess. Few senators have publicly voiced their positions on the insurance issue, which has received little attention during the regulatory debate. It is unclear if senators are willing to sign off on the House changes.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), joined by a handful of senators, wanted to change the Senate bill before it passed in May to make it similar to the House’s version, but their amendment never came up for debate. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a co-sponsor of that effort, is one of the conferees and is supporting tweaks to the bill.

“He would be supportive of further efforts to limit federal pre-emption,” said David Carle, Leahy’s spokesman. “He’s long supported states’ ability to enact consumer protections that exceed federal standards.”

The issue has split the insurance industry along traditional lines.

Insurers that support a strong federal voice on the industry argue the Senate version would give the U.S. needed power to oversee an increasingly global industry. Nine large insurance trade associations — including the American Insurance Association, American Council of Life Insurers and Reinsurance Association of America — wrote to lawmakers last week to support the Senate language.

Other large insurers favor the existing state-based system of regulations and support the House’s version. They are joined by consumer advocacy groups including Consumer Watchdog, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen.

“These provisions would newly empower Treasury to weaken existing state insurance regulation in the name of expanding access for foreign insurance firms to the U.S. market,” the consumer groups wrote last week of the Senate bill.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”

Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.

In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.

Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.

The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”

Democratic lawmakers are pushing the White House to force federal contractors to pay their employees a “living wage,” setting the stage for another summertime showdown between organized labor, government watchdog organizations and the business community.
As Members fled Capitol Hill for the Memorial Day recess, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and 21 of his colleagues fired off a letter to President Barack Obama, encouraging him to sign an executive order that would enact wage requirements and other “high road” contract requirements for companies that do business with the federal government.

“There is a pressing need for this measure,” Cummings wrote on May 28. “The Economic Policy Institute estimates that there were 2 million federal contract workers in 2006; nearly 20 percent of these contract workers earn less than the poverty threshold wage of $9.91 per hour, and 40 percent earn less than a livable wage.”

“Not only are such conditions bad for workers, but they are also bad for taxpayers,” he continued. “Taxpayers pay for the hidden costs of poverty wages through Medicaid and other programs and, when workers are poorly treated, taxpayers often receive lower quality work.”

The letter was also signed by New Democrat Coalition Reps. Bill Foster (Ill.), Rush Holt (N.J.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Laura Richardson (Calif.) and Patrick Murphy (Pa.), who is also a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment about the proposed executive order. Still, Cummings and his colleagues hinted in the letter that the proposal, which first emerged earlier this year, could be revived this summer — much to the delight of labor groups such as the Service Employees International Union.

“There are a lot of priorities for workers right now who are struggling,” SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes said. “High road contracting is important to try and rebuild the middle class, and there are other priorities that we have that have a similar end goal: create more good jobs.”

Exact details of the proposed executive order are unclear. But according to a purported draft provided to Roll Call and distributed by the White House late last year, the administration’s goal is to bulk up the federal salary requirements for contractors to “promote President Obama’s agenda to create good jobs and expand the middle class.”

“Federal contracting has ballooned since the beginning of the Bush administration: goods and services contracting totaled over $500 billion in 2008, more than double the level in 2000 and equal to over three percent of the total U.S. economy,” the memo states.

The executive order would also blacklist contractors who have been cited for environmental, tax and other violations, according to the memo. The left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund on Thursday suggested that such a policy may have prevented BP’s massive ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“The ‘high road’ contracting proposal supported by the Center for American Progress Action Fund would ensure that the government has the power and information it needs to avoid doing business with irresponsible companies in order to prevent tragedies like the BP oil gusher from happening again,” a June 3 report by the group reads. “Well before the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, BP had a long history of lawbreaking that should have warned the federal government to refrain from entering into risky deals with the company.”

SEIU and the Center for American Progress are also part of a loose coalition of advocacy and legal organizations calling for Obama to sign the executive order. Gary Therkildsen, federal fiscal policy analyst with OMB Watch, said his group supports the high road requirements. He said the new rules would upend the current guidelines that promote lower wages for employees of federal contractors.

“If they’re an upstanding contractor that does right by its employees with high road contracting policy, they’d be more likely to get a contract,” Therkildsen said. “For those that fight for social equity, that’s the idea behind the whole thing.”

Proponents of stricter guidelines for contractors and higher wages for employees face staunch opposition from the business community and Senate Republicans.

With contentious “card check” legislation dormant for now, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is warning its members that the looming White House plan will also have enormous negative consequences for their balance sheets.

“A number of our members do government contracting, and they would certainly face higher labor costs if they’re forced to apply these hyperminimum wages to their entire work force,” said Glenn Spencer, the executive director of the chamber’s Workforce Freedom Initiative.

Earlier this year, Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and other Republican Senators in multiple letters lodged their concerns with Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag about the proposal.

Spencer also said that he continues to hammer the high road contracting proposal when he’s out on the road giving speeches to chamber members trying to explain it in terms business leaders understand.

“The hyperminimum wage that you’d be forced to pay everybody? People get that pretty quickly,” he said.

“Thanks you for a super conference. We look forward to future meetings as PACE members instead of visitors”.

“Despite the weather, we had a great time and met some wonderful new friends. We appreciate your hard work and dedication to the PEO industry”.

The 2010 PACE annual conference was held May 2-5 at the historic Union Station Hotel in Nashville Tennessee. In keeping with our mission of promoting healthy legislation and education at all levels relative to human resource outsourcing and the PEO industry in general, the theme of this year’s event centered on the national health care debate and business solutions at a time when the country’s economic conditions are in turmoil.

Unfortunately, the conference was held at a time when the Nashville area received a record amount of rain, flooding the Cumberland River and destroying homes, businesses and bridges. Obviously, the flooding had an adverse impact on transportation, as the airport and several major highways were closed throughout the week. Thankfully, while several attendees’ were forced to change their flights or drive different routes to the city, no one was hurt, and the conference was able to continue as planned. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and families of this disaster.

The conference closed with the election of the following officers:

President Barbara Pailley Assured Source, Inc.

Vice President Doug Lowery Harbor America, Inc.

Secretary Don Taylor Personnel Plus, Inc.

Treasurer Mitch Chailland Chailland, Inc.

In addition to the election of officers, the Board identified the following committee’s for 2010/2011:

Conference Committee George Gersema, Chairman

Membership Committee Doug Lowery, Chairman

State Affairs Committee Open

Federal Affairs Committee Open

Vendor Relations Committee Open

Public Relations Committee Open

These committee’s will require assistance from PACE members if they are to be successful. On behalf of the Board of Directors, please consider volunteering your time or company resources to making PACE the best it can be in the coming year.

I hope to see you at next year’s conference, in sunny St. Louis.

Sincerely,

Ray O’Leary

After two days of wrangling over amendments and votes, Senate Democrats passed their massive rewrite of financial industry regulations Thursday, allowing Majority Leader Harry Reid to notch a significant victory.

By a vote of 59-39, the Senate passed the measure, but only after narrowly clearing two major hurdles that required 60 votes.

Reid, who faces a difficult re-election at home in Nevada, made the legislation to increase oversight of the financial world a top priority and maneuvered it through procedural and political minefields over the last month.

In the end, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.) voted for the bill. Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Maria Cantwell (Wash.) voted against it. Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) did not vote.

Moments before the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) raised a budget point of order against the bill because the measure exceeds the Banking Committee's budget allocations by more than $20 billion. Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said the point of order was pointless because the Budget Committee did not provide the panel with a reserve fund in last year’s budget and that the costs incurred by the bill would be covered by the financial industry.

Three Republicans joined Democrats to waive that point of order on a 60-39 vote.

Earlier in the day, Reid succeeded in finding the one vote he needed to end a GOP-led filibuster that was supported by two liberal Democrats.

Brown, who helped Republicans block the bill Wednesday, switched his vote Thursday, saying in a statement: “I supported moving the financial bill forward today because I received assurances from Senator Reid and his leadership team that the issues related to Massachusetts in the financial reform bill will be fixed before it is signed into law. We are still working to ensure these commitments are fulfilled prior to a final vote.”

However, an impasse between Republicans and Democrats prevented the Senate from adopting any further amendments, including those that would have addressed Brown’s concerns.

Republicans also moved to prevent a vote on an amendment to bar banks from using their own money to make risky trading deals that are only intended to increase their profit margins. The proposal had been added as a second-degree amendment to a Sen. Sam Brownback amendment. When the Kansas Republican withdrew his proposal, the second amendment was rendered moot.

Sen. Carl Levin, who co-sponsored an amendment with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), blasted Republicans just before the vote for their procedural maneuvering.

“If that amendment is withdrawn because of the fear that Merkley-Levin would pass, that would be an extraordinary, powerful, additional statement of the influence of Wall Street,” the Michigan Democrat said of Brownback’s amendment.

Levin added that Banking ranking member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) supported the proposal and that Democratic leaders would try to work it into a conference agreement with House Members.

Updated: 6:55 p.m.
Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah), who was first elected to the Senate in 1992, will not be the Republican nominee this fall after he failed to finish in the top two at the state’s GOP nominating convention on Saturday.

Bennett finished third in the second round of balloting behind attorney Mike Lee and businessman Tim Bridgewater.

The only electoral path left for the Senator after his defeat Saturday would be a long-shot write-in campaign. A spokeswoman for the Senator said Bennett has made “no commitment” about whether he would take that route.

Bennett’s loss will not endanger Republicans’ chances of holding the seat in November but will be celebrated as a victory by conservative activists who had painted him as a “Republican in name only” who was too willing to work with Democrats on issues such as government financial bailouts and health care. On a national level, it will be viewed as a clear example of just how much of an anti-incumbent and anti-establishment cycle 2010 has become.

Bennett had hoped to garner enough support Saturday to force a primary, where he could take his message to all of Utah’s Republicans rather than have his fate decided by the more conservative party activists who attend the convention.

Bennett, a close ally of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had tried to leverage his broad support from the national GOP establishment leading up to the convention. On Saturday, he brought former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), a fellow Mormon, to the podium before he addressed the convention. But Bennett’s appeals about seniority, experience and connections fell on mostly deaf ears on Saturday.

Bennett’s loss will also be a major victory for the anti-tax group, the Club for Growth, who had put the Senator at the top of its target list this primary season. Bennett became a top target of the club in the wake of his efforts to help pass the Wall Street bailout bill in 2008, and the group took a lead role in lobbying delegates to oust the three-term Senator leading to Saturday’s convention. The club spent heavily on its effort to lobby convention voters to dump Bennett.

“Utah Republicans made the right decision today for their state, and sent a clear message that change is finally coming to Washington,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said in a statement immediately following Bennett’s defeat. “The media may report this as Bob Bennett’s loss, but we see it as a victory for Utah, for the United States Senate, and for the cause of economic freedom.”

It remains to be seen whether Lee and Bridgewater will go to a primary or whether one of the two can gain enough support to win the nomination outright. A third round of balloting has been called.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) released a statement Saturday praising Bennett’s service and reiterating that the committee will back the eventual nominee.

“This has been an open and spirited process and I want to be clear that the NRSC will wholeheartedly support the Republican candidate that primary voters in Utah ultimately choose as their nominee,” Cornyn said. “I am confident that this Senate seat remains in Republican control this November.”

After a frustrating day of procedural maneuvering, the Senate managed to dispense with a handful of amendments to the financial regulatory reform bill Thursday night and finished voting until next week.
With well over 100 amendments in the queue still to consider, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Members, ”I am sometimes a patient person,” and acknowledged there would be no further votes until Tuesday.

Earlier in the day Democratic leaders had threatened to continue voting late into the evening and perhaps into Friday.

Reid called a rare live quorum to try to resolve a stalemate over key amendments sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) but in the end was only able to clear less controversial provisions.

Reid maintains he wants to pass the regulatory reform bill by the end of next week, but that timeline could slip as the amendment process moves along slowly.

Updated: 6:24 p.m.
Senate Democrats failed Monday night to clear a key procedural hurdle to begin debate on a sweeping financial reform bill, falling two votes shy of the 60 they needed to bring the measure to the floor.

The near party-line vote seemed predetermined before the bells rang at 5 p.m., and despite the defeat, Members from both sides reiterated their hope to reach an agreement on how best to regulate the financial industry soon.

“Obviously, we’re not all there,” Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said just before the vote.

No Republicans voted for the motion to move to the bill, which failed, 57-41. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) broke with his party and voted “no.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against it only for procedural reasons; it will allow him to move to reconsider the vote later.

But Dodd, who has worked on the issue for months, made the case for moving to the bill on the floor to maintain pressure for the bipartisan deal that has so far eluded him.

“You can never get there in one of these debates before you actually have the opportunity to do exactly that: where Members get to be heard, to raise their ideas,” Dodd said.

Republicans also held out optimism.

“I still think there’s a very good chance for a bipartisan agreement,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said just before the vote.

Corker said he was concerned with a provision in the measure on how to regulate derivatives, the complex financial instrument that has become a major sticking point in negotiations. The provision, which Corker noted was not welcomed with fanfare by White House officials, would require commercial banks to spin off their derivatives-trading desks. Corker said he was scheduled to discuss the issue with White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee on Monday evening.

“There’s still agreements that have to be reached on both sides,” Corker said of the continued talks, noting the ongoing buzz to announce a deal. “There’s pretty much swirl right now.”

A statement of administrative policy released just before the vote upheld both Dodd’s bill and the controversial derivatives language authored by Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.).

Passing the bill “will move the Nation another important step towards necessary, comprehensive Wall Street reform that will create clear rules of the road and can be consistently and systematically enforced, thus creating a more stable financial system with better protection for consumers and investors,” the statement read.

Dodd was set to meet again with Banking ranking member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) following Monday night’s vote to continue hammering a possible agreement that could be taken up by the full Senate later this week. Meanwhile, Democrats are likely to continue highlighting the issue with repeated floor statements and press conferences this week as they hope to build enough momentum behind the issue to pick off a handful of Republican votes.

President Barack Obama signed the sweeping healthcare law on Tuesday and later in the week challenged Republicans who vowed to campaign for its repeal to “go for it.”

Republicans admit it will be difficult for Congress to repeal the legislation in the next few years, but they see a potential ally in the Supreme Court.

“It’s very probable that a number of provisions in this monstrosity violate constitutional principles,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think there will be a lot of ongoing litigation for years to come.”

Sessions said the provision in the law that requires individuals to buy insurance or face a penalty raises “very serious constitutional questions.”

“I think the Supreme Court could very well confront that issue, and there will be others in the legislation,” he said.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said last week that “repeal and replace” would be the GOP campaign slogan of 2010.

But Republican lawmakers acknowledge it will be difficult to do so legislatively, at least in the foreseeable future.

Even if Republicans capture majorities in the Senate and House, Obama would veto any repeal legislation. And if Obama loses reelection, Republicans must still overcome the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate.

Democrats say healthcare reform will surge in popularity once people begin to see benefits, such as subsidies to buy insurance.

Sessions said he would prefer if Congress repealed the legislation and did not have to rely on the Supreme Court.

“My preference is that it should be altered and redone by the same people who did it, the Congress,” Sessions said, although he admitted such a course of action would present “a lot of problems.”

Some Democrats view the court with trepidation since it struck down a major tenet of campaign finance law earlier this year, allowing corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections. The decision is considered highly favorable to Republicans.

Other Republicans besides Sessions are looking to the Supreme Court to weigh in.

“There are such significant issues that the court could very well declare the bill unconstitutional,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

Chambliss highlighted several provisions the court could strike down, such as a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax and federal payments that are more generous to certain states.

“We do things from time to time that favor one state or congressional district over another, but this is different because it’s such a massive legislation,” Chambliss said.

Obama on Tuesday will sign a companion measure to put the finishing touches on reform. The so-called fixes bill will offer more generous subsidies to low-income people and raise Medicare payroll taxes on unearned income, among other changes.

The companion health reform bill would repeal a provision to funnel extra Medicaid payments to Nebraska — a deal that became known as the “Cornhusker Kickback” — but would leave in place extra funding for Louisiana, which still suffers from the effects of Hurricane Katrina. Republicans have called this second deal the “Louisiana Purchase.”

More than a dozen state attorneys general have already announced plans to challenge the constitutionality of healthcare reform.

Some prominent legal scholars have dismissed these suits as frivolous. Others have said the unprecedented nature of the law underscores the uncertainty of the legal outcome.

“My copy of the Constitution doesn’t have an individual right not to be insured,” said Charles Fried, a constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School, who served as solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan.

“I am prepared to say it’s complete nonsense,” Fried said of constitutional challenges to healthcare reform.

He argued the individual mandate to buy insurance is similar to a lot of taxes.

“If you don’t sign up for insurance, then you’re going to be some kind of drag on the system,” said Fried, who argued that the federal government has a right to tax behavior that costs society as a whole.

But Randy Barnett, a constitutional expert at Georgetown Law School, said the federal government has never used its power of taxation in such a way, to compel people to buy a product from private companies.

Barnett said Roberts “has shown no evidence of being radically inclined toward limiting congressional power,” adding that if the court strikes down the bill, “it would be exceptional.”

Barnett noted, however, that in recent years the court has curbed congressional powers in rulings that were considered very surprising at the time.

He cited the court’s decisions against the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which came down as complete surprises.

Some Democrats are concerned about the Supreme Court’s recent willingness to break with precedent in the campaign finance law case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Democrats denounced the 5-4 decision as radical, and it has left them leery of future rulings.

Some Democrats are further disconcerted by the small feud that has flared between Obama and Roberts.

Obama chastised the court during his State of the Union address.

“Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama told Congress.

Roberts jabbed back at the president this month by telling a group of law students the annual address has “degenerated in to a political pep rally."

Fried, however, said the legal grounds for the successful challenge against limits on corporate political spending were “completely different” from the underpinning to suits against healthcare reform.

Fried said the court “telegraphed” its campaign finance decision “a long time ago” in previous cases, such as Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

Douglas Kmiec, the chairman of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, which is regarded as a conservative-leaning school, sided with Fried.

“While one can perhaps understand the sting of the loss for the GOP, these lawsuits have no real likelihood of success under long-established precedent,” said Kmiec.

Kmiec described the court’s rulings against the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act as aberrations.

“Neither of these cases has commanded great deference [or] has been applied consistently to narrow federal authority as against the regulatory power of the state,” Kmiec said.

March 18, 2010, 10:15 p.m.
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff

House Democrats officially gained two and lost two on Thursday as they continued their painstaking zigzag toward 216 votes and final passage of a sweeping health care overhaul, now likely on Sunday.

Leaders got two pieces of good news, with retiring Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and freshman Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), who voted "no" on the original House bill, announcing they would back reform this time around. But those gains were offset by the losses of Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) who flipped their previous support to opposition.

Lynch, in particular, was a blow to reform supporters, since the former union president had not been on any watch lists of potential vote flippers. He ripped the Senate-passed measure as a “surrender” to insurance companies, and he held fast to his opposition even after a meeting at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday afternoon.

Though Obama failed to sway Lynch, House Democrats were buoyed by the whip in chief’s decision on Thursday to postpone his planned Asia jaunt until later this year so he can be on hand to help round up support for his signature domestic initiative.

The release of the final bill text — and estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — gave handfuls of other undecided lawmakers some homework to do, as many on the fence continued to reserve judgment until reading through the language and scoring. But the CBO’s deficit reduction projections — a whopping $1.2 trillion in the second decade — had some former opponents encouraged. “The numbers sound promising, but I want to see how we got to the numbers,” said Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who opposed the House-passed bill.

The arithmetic for Democratic leaders is simple: If they can hold on to all 216 of the Democrats who voted for House passage and are still serving, they win. But rounding up those supporters has proved tricky. And they need to offset every defection by converting someone who voted against the original measure.

Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) dismissed the threat of minimal defections. “We’ve got a surplus. We’ve got some spares,” she said. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) likewise projected confidence, telling reporters at a midday press conference, “We feel very strong about where we are.”

Others were measured. Energy and Commerce Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-Mich.) said support for the legislation “looks good and feels good.” But the veteran health care reform advocate cautioned that this was “the murkiest time” in the vote-counting process.

The gravest threat remains abortion language in the Senate version that some anti-abortion rights Democrats argue doesn’t go far enough to block taxpayer dollars from funding the procedure. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has led opposition to the provision, but just how many lawmakers are behind him remains unclear, and leaders are hoping they can hold abortion-related defections down to about five.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a Stupak supporter though officially still undecided on the Senate bill, on Thursday urged Pelosi to hold a separate vote reaffirming the stricter House approach to the matter. “I want to be constructive,” she said. “We have to find a way to work it out.” But abortion rights supporters rejected the proposal out of hand. “We’re not going to do that,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the Pro-Choice Caucus. “We don’t know it would die in the Senate. The stakes are too high.”

The threat of another social debate derailing reform fizzled on Thursday when Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who was officially opposed to the latest incarnation of the overhaul on account of tougher immigration language, announced his support. The Chicago Democrat had signaled as much on Wednesday, when he said he was taking a “macro” approach to his vote and suggested he could come around if Obama gave him assurances that the administration would push for comprehensive immigration reform in short order.

His announcement came as the full Congressional Hispanic Caucus announced its endorsement of the health care bill.

“I cannot see that voting against this health care bill is going to bring us any closer to comprehensive immigration reform,” Gutierrez said. “I do see that a success and a victory on health care will allow this president to be strengthened and to be able to carry out with more political capital our ultimate goal.”

Leaders scrambled, meanwhile, to defend their preferred procedural strategy for passing the bill. The "Slaughter Solution" — by which Democrats would avoid a separate vote on the politically unpopular Senate version by deeming it passed once they approve a package of fixes — has become a focus of Republican attacks this week. And the GOP sought to put Democrats on record defending the maneuver on Thursday with a privileged resolution that would have forced an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. Democrats turned it back, but not without some heartburn in moderate ranks. And aides said the procedural path forward remained an open question after Republicans appeared to have connected with their withering criticism of the “deem and pass” method.

Steven T. Dennis contributed to this report.

Senate OKs jobs bill for Obama's signature

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 17, 2010; 10:46 AM

WASHINGTON -- Companies that hire unemployed workers will get a temporary payroll tax holiday under a bill that easily won final congressional approval Wednesday.

The bipartisan 68-29 vote in the Senate sends the legislation to the White House, where President Barack Obama has promised to sign it into law.

It will be the first of several election-year jobs bills promised by Democrats to be enacted into law, though there's plenty of skepticism that the measure will do much to actually create jobs. Optimistic estimates predict the tax break could generate perhaps 250,000 jobs through the end of the year, but that would be just a tiny fraction of the 8.4 million jobs lost since the start of the recession.

The measure is part of a campaign by Democrats to show that they are addressing the nation's unemployment problem, but that message was overshadowed by Congress' feverish final push to pass health care overhaul legislation by this weekend.

The bill which passed Wednesday contains about $18 billion in tax breaks and a $20 billion infusion of cash into highway and transit programs. Among other things, it exempts businesses that hire the unemployed from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and gives employers an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year. Taxpayers will have to reimburse Social Security for the lost revenue.

"This is just the first, certainly not the last, piece of legislation that we will put forward in relation to jobs," said sponsor Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "If we don't create jobs, the economy will not move forward."

It also extends highway and mass transit programs through the end of the year and pump in $20 billion in time for the spring construction season. That money would make up for lower-than-expected gasoline tax revenues.

The measure is modest compared with last year's $862 billion economic stimulus bill, and the bulk of the hiring tax breaks would probably go to companies that were likely to hire new workers anyway.

Much of the bill is financed over the coming decade by cracking down on offshore tax havens, though it would add $13 billion to the debt in the coming three years.

"When are we going to stop spending money around here as if there's no tomorrow?" said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "Because pretty soon there's going to be no tomorrow for our children as we add this debt to their backs."

In addition to the hiring tax incentives and highway funding, the bill extends a tax break for small businesses buying new equipment and modestly expands an initiative that helps state and local governments finance infrastructure projects.

A far larger measure that would extend health insurance subsidies and jobless checks for the unemployed is in the works but has hit slow going. That measure has passed both House and Senate but is hung up as the rival chambers wrangle over how to partially finance the legislation, which also would extend a variety of tax breaks for individuals and businesses.

As a result, it may require a third temporary extension of unemployment benefits, which would otherwise expire at the end of this month.

The Senate vote comes as the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to vote on a bill Wednesday that lawmakers hope will generate jobs through infrastructure spending and tax cuts for investing in some small businesses. The bill would exempt long-term investments in certain small businesses from capital gains taxes, and would expand the Build America Bonds program, which subsidizes interest costs paid by local governments when they borrow for construction projects.

The bond program would be extended through June 2013, at a cost of $7.6 billion. The entire bill would cost about $17 billion over the next decade.

Much of the bill would be paid for by limiting the ability of multinational corporations to avoid U.S. withholding taxes by shifting assets among foreign countries. The bill would also make it easier for the federal government to withhold payments from government contractors that owe back taxes.

House passage of Senate jobs bill would end DoT furloughs

By Ben Pershing
Wednesday, February 24, 2010; 10:57 AM 

The Senate easily passed a $15 billion jobs bill on Wednesday morning amid hope that the measure could provide a blueprint for other items onPresident Obama's agenda.

The measure passed 70 to 28, with 13 Republicans joining 57 Democrats in support of the package. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against it.

"We've had so much gridlock," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), co-author of a key portion of the bill. Now, he said, "finally we have something" bipartisan to show the public.

The legislation is the first element of what Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said will be a multipart "jobs agenda." The measure includes a new program that would give companies a break from paying Social Security taxes on new employees for the remainder of 2010. It also carries a one-year extension of the Highway Trust Fund, an expansion of the Build America Bonds program and a provision to allow companies to write off equipment purchases.

The next stop is the House, where Democratic leaders are weighing whether to pass the Senate version or go to conference to reconcile it with the $154 billion jobs bill the House passed in December.

Wednesday's passage of the Senate bill was made possible by five GOP defections on a procedural vote Monday -- from two retiring senators from the economically depressed Midwest and three New Englanders seeking to maintain a foothold in a region where Republican officeholders have grown scarce in recent election cycles.

Freshman Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) grabbed the headlines, deciding on the first big vote of his new career to side with Democrats and the two GOP moderates from Maine, Sens. Susan Collinsand Olympia J. Snowe.

Just days after Brown was greeted rapturously by attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference, his vote on the jobs measure made Reid "very happy," the majority leader said. Reaction on the right was less complimentary.

One leader of the "tea party" movement has taken to calling the freshman "Benedict Brown," and disillusioned conservatives filled Brown's Facebook page with accusations that he was a "Judas" and a "sellout."

Democrats recognized early that Brown's vote could be in play, given the message of independence he projected during his special-election campaign to succeed the late senator Edward M. Kennedy(D). Reid called Brown to lobby him and was increasingly confident as the vote approached that the chamber's newest Republican would be willing to cross the aisle.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to criticize Brown for his vote. "The Republican Party represents all parts of the country, different points of view," McConnell said during a news conference. "We don't expect our members to be in lockstep on every single issue, and we're happy to have him here."

The votes of Collins and Snowe are frequently targeted by Democrats, and while neither senator said after the tally that she had been promised anything, both are eager for future jobs bills to include tax breaks and help for small businesses.

Retiring Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) was more specific, announcing Monday that he had agreed to back the jobs measure after getting a "commitment" from Reid that the Senate would take up a long-term reauthorization of the highway bill in 2010.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who is also not running for reelection, cited the bill's funding for transportation projects in explaining his decision to side with Democrats. During Monday's tally, Bond waited until the end to record his vote, not wanting to be the 60th "aye."

Democrats welcomed the result, suggesting that it could be a model for future endeavors.

"Several of those ideas were Republican ideas, so it's nice to see that there are Republicans who are willing to not follow blindly their leadership in their overall goal of filibustering," said Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.).

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she had helped rally support for the measure from the transportation industry. She said the lessons of Monday's vote were that Democrats "should keep our bills very clear" and should make sure that "the American people who are involved in these issues get on the phone with their senators."

Republicans contend that the jobs bill's lessons are not applicable to health-care reform or other, more ambitious legislation.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the measure attracted support from his side of the aisle because it is modest.

"There are plenty of opportunities for bipartisan cooperation," he said. "Where we have trouble are these great big, comprehensive, 2,000-page, full-of-surprises, turn-the-country-upside-down pieces of legislation that cost so much. If the administration would stop biting off more than it could chew, I think we would have more progress."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said the level of crossover support in the future would be based on whether Reid is willing to allow Republicans to help shape bills and offer amendments on the floor.

"I think it's going to depend on the nature of the bill and on whether he's going to try to freeze out the minority party," Cornyn said, adding that he would advise against reading too much into Monday's vote: "Frankly, I just don't think it was all that big of a deal."

If you have never been to Nashville - also known as Music City, USA – you are in for a real treat.  Home of the Grand Ole Opry, Nashville is also well known for its many excellent restaurants and honky-tonks, where big name musical stars can often be found jammin’ with the locals.  It’s a small city with a big city attitude where something is always going on.  If your schedule allows, plan on staying a couple of extra days before or after the conference to take it all in.
 
Everything about the conference, including online Registration Forms and Hotel Reservation information, can be found on the PACE website.  We hope you can join us.