House, Senate reach deal on economic stimulus package

Here are the dirty details. The price tag is less than both chambers' versions, at $789 billion, slightly below the $800 billion target of the Obama administration (which was already on the lower side of what economists say we need). But it was needed to placate the Republican senators whose votes are needed to pass the bill (it's unclear if the final version will garner any more GOP support, but don't count on it). Some of the tax cuts were scaled back and some of the state funding for schools restored (though only for existing school modernization and not new school construction). The stimulus is primarily meant to boost job creation, with an estimate of 3.5 million new jobs over the next few years (this DMN article suggests 286,000 of those will be here in Texas).

Both houses are expected to pass it by the end of tomorrow and President Obama will sign it into law at a public ceremony shortly thereafter.

UPDATE: Think Progress has a list of improvements in the final bill as opposed to the Senate version.

"Victory"

Regarding the House Republican's imitation of The Little Bighorn over the stimulus bill and other various acts of Congress, Daniel Larison has this to say on why this "last stand" may not have been such a good idea:

Indeed, the sudden unanimous opposition of House Republicans to this bill mainly accomplishes one thing, which is to remind everyone of how gutlessly the Republican leadership acquiesced to whatever the Bush administration wanted and how they only managed to discover some interest in resisting massive expenditures when someone from the other party is in the White House. This highlights the past fecklessness and opportunism of the current Republican leadership. Given the current mood in the country, the House GOP in ‘10 will probably be received in the country about as well as the House GOP was received during the ‘98 midterms. The lesson to draw from the Democrats’ defeat in 2002 is not that cooperation with the White House loses the opposition party seats in the next elections, but that challenging a very popular President on a major piece of legislation (especially when the legislation is also popular) usually ends up costing the opposition party seats.

Nate Silver echoes this, and tries to get to the heart of what's going on here:

But surely the phrase "ZERO Republicans voted for the Recovery Package" is more likely to escape Democratic lips on the campaign trail in 2010 than Republican ones. If the stimulus bill proves to be unpopular -- and it might well -- a House Republican can tout the fact that he voted against the package. But with the unanimous vote -- as well as the near-unanimity on measures like the Ledbetter Act and Digital TV -- the Republicans remove the emphasis from their individual judgment to that of their party. It is not clear why they would want this: the Republican brand, even under the best of circumstances, is not likely to be significantly rehabilitated by 2010, especially when the Republicans do not have agenda-setting powers.

[...]

... the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.

And here's David Weigel, who says there is strategy at work here:

The Republican strategy here is incredibly bold. The party’s betting against Obama’s current popularity and against the chance of an economic recovery by 2010 (or 2012), having done very little work convincing Americans that the stimulus tax rebates amount to “welfare” (one popular argument) or that, after eight years of deficit spending, voters should worry about the cost of this bill. I’m skeptical about the political oomph of attacking “wasteful spending,” even though (in a growing economy, at least) it makes more sense than endless tax cuts. But maybe the strategy will pay off. Or maybe putting 177 Republicans on record against tax cuts will come back to hurt them. We’ll find out.

I for one think the effects of this stand will neither be as good as Republicans hope, nor as bad as Silver and Larison think. However, I do consider this a golden opportunity for Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration to do as they please, as they can now plausibly say "See, we try to reach out to them in the spirit of bipartisanship, and this is what they do."

United States House Races Thread

This thread will serve to provide updates on the outcomes of the United States House races. A handy link to this post is on the upper right-hand corner of the blog, but I will probably keep promoting this post along with our other election threads to the top of the blog. For the sake of ease of reading, I'll skip the "Update" addendum that usually accompanies a change to the post, and just add information as we get it. Necessarily, we will only be following contested House races.

MSNBC is calling it for Murtha (whew!)

Texas: McCaul (R) will defeat challenger Democratic Larry Doherty for HD 10. Sadly, it's looking like Nick Lampson, who took over Tom DeLay's seat in 2006, will lose to Pete Olson. John Culberson (R) defeats challenger Michael Skelly.

Chris Shays, Connecticut's 22-year GOP incumbent, has lost. Democrats now hold all House seats from New England and New York.

John Adler (D) defeats Christ Myers in New Jersey to take the Republican open seat.

Tim Mahoney, successor to Mark Foley in Florida, has lost to his Republican challenger. But elsewhere in Florida, GOP incumbents Tom Feeney and Ric Keller have both lost.

In Illinois, Debbie Halvorson (d) has taken the seat vacated by its Republican incumbent.

In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Bachman held onto her seat despite sticking her foot all the way down her mouth and out her ass by calling for investigations into anti-American members of Congress. From here on out she will probably be more circumspect, thought probably not less idiotic.

Kissell defeats Republican incumbent Hays in North Carolina.

Gerry Connolly (D) succeeds retiring incumbent Tom Davis (R) in Virginia. The race between Goode (R) and Perriello (D) in southern Virginia is too close to call.

So far, Democrats have gained a net of 14 seats in the House. Not the stunning numbers of the 2006 mid-terms by any means, but increasing the majority in the House has never been as crucial as gaining a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and taking the White House.

Bailout Plan Defeated

I gotta say, I don't understand how after last week you would bring this to a vote without knowing for sure it's going to pass. The House is 13 votes short of the 218 needed, with only about a 1/3 of House Republicans backing it. Suffice it to say they need to figure out a way to bring some more of those recalcitrant members on board. 

Support Representative Edward Markey's Net Neutrality bill

Finally, a bill is being introduced which will legislate Net Neutrality into being. Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey is introducing HR 5353(pdf file). The essence of this bill is that it would prohibit "unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators" to "to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks".

Naturally the telecommunications companies are opposed to this bill:

Markey's proposal was greeted with skepticism by some telecommunications companies. An advocacy group that represents some of the companies, called Hands Off the Internet, said it had no objection to studying the issue but opposed any further regulations.

Such regulations "will create uncertainty for investors and Internet service providers that must build the infrastructure to meet consumer demands," said Hands Off the Internet.

(Read the comments on this post for more information about Hands Off the Internet.)

Read some of my older posts for discussions of Net Neutrality.

I have not changed my position: I strongly favor writing Net Neutrality into law and preventing any possible abuses before they occur, although some may have already. TWM officially endorses Mukasey's bill. If you want to offer your support, go here or look up your politicians through Project Vote Smart and make your voice heard. As always, you can make a difference, so don't be afraid to write your call your elected representatives.

Movement on Iraq in House?

Today, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly, 377-46, voted for a bill that simply requires President Bush to submit a plan for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq; under the bill, the administration must report to Congress on the status of redeployment plans in 60 days and follow-up reports would be required every 90 days thereafter. Many members of the "Out of Iraq" caucus opposed it since it doesn't attach any binding time line for troops to be pulled out and feared it will give Republicans political cover by enabling them to say they opposed Bush on the war in some way.

Thankfully, some Democrats took a much more hard line stance:

Top House Democratic appropriators said Tuesday they will not move a new war funding bill until early next year and will condition it on a goal of January 2009 for an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq.

Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey of Wisconsin and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania said two other benchmarks also should be met before more funds are appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: adequate time at home between deployments for U.S. troops and an intensive diplomatic effort involving other countries in the region.

To dramatize the cost of the Iraq War, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates is running $10 billion a month, they also proposed an income tax surcharge to pay for future military operations in Iraq.It would be a progressive surtax of 2 to 15 percent based on which income tax bracket you're in, with the wealthier paying the higher percentage of course. Rep. Jim McGovern made the proposal awhile back, but now Obey and Murtha are throwing their considerable weight behind it. However, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not in support.

But Obey summed up his positions well:

“If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war,” Obey said in a news conference.

Obey also told reporters President Bush will not get supplemental money for the Iraq war until he agrees to change course.

Bush has sent a request for a $190 billion supplemental spending bill.

“As chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo,” Obey told reporters.

Will the rest of the caucus and the Senate support his position? I hope so and we'll see. It sure beats Republican Senator George Voinovich's We-can-begin-to-change-the-mission-in-15-months-after-Bush-has-already-left-office plan and all the other weak legislation that won't do anything to end the war.

House Passes Defense Budget

The House passed the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill, 395-13, that would add money for equipment for National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines and award increases for defense health care and military housing and is one of the only spending bills President Bush hasn't threatened to veto though Democrats did make some changes to his requests. It does not include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will be considered in another supplemental bill in September.

Rep. John Murtha's amendments to close Guantanamo Bay and require troops be fully trained and equipped before going to fight in Iraq were not considered, but will be later on when the Senate passes its version and it goes to conference or on the next war funding supplemental. This bill does however contain a provision barring the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.

Both the House and the Senate are now on recess until after Labor Day.

House Passes Major Energy Bills

The House of Representatives passed two bills today to promote energy security and renewable energy, though the White House has issued veto threats for both.

The first bill, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, passed 241-172 and requires electric utilities to use at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels, urges new efficiency standards for appliances and lighting, authorizes special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand, calls for more energy efficient "green" buildings, and instructs the Department of the Interior to look for ways to cut carbon emissions.

The second bill, the Renewable Energy Tax Act, passed 221-189 and revokes $16 billion in tax breaks to oil companies while offering tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts. The legislation would also end a tax break for buying large SUVs, known as the "Hummer tax loophole" which allows people who buy some of the most expensive SUVs to write off much of the cost, and provides tax incentives for producing flex-fuel vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol and for gas station operators to install E-85 pumps.

Neither bill address fuel efficiency or ethanol, issues that will be thrashed in reconciliation with a similar measure the Senate passed in June.

Other Goings-On in Congress Today

The Senate voted, 60-28, late today to give President Bush authority to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects (which had been barred by a FISA court because the messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers) without court warrants for six months until they come up with a new plan. President Bush had promised to veto a Democratic alternative that would have required a court review within 15 days and said he'd keep Congress in session until they sent him a bill. The Democratic version of the bill had failed earlier in the House under rules that required a two-thirds majority for passage. They will likely vote on on the Senate version tomorrow before they recess for the month.

Meanwhile, the Post reports that the House has unanimously agreed to create a special select committee, with subpoena powers, to investigate Republican allegations that Democratic leaders had "stolen a victory from the House GOP on a parliamentary vote late Thursday night." Such committees are rare and in the past have been used for the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals. Does anyone think the Republicans would set up something like this if they were still the majority and accused of wrongdoing?

The House also voted, by a unanimous vote, to authorize additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed.

In other Congress-related news, the Huffington Post praises the Green Jobs Act of 2007 whilst the Senate unveils global warming legislation and the House goes after private-equity firms and hedge funds.

UPDATE: The Senate also voted to direct $250 million to rebuild the collapsed Minnesota bridge; the House had to re-approve because the Senate version was slightly different.

House votes for more rest time at home for troops serving in Iraq

Today, the House voted, 229-194 (go email your Republican reps who voted against this), to approve a bill that would prevent the redeployment of active-duty troops to Iraq until they had been rested at home for the same period of time they served in the war zone. The proposal would mandate three times as much rest at home for members of the reserves and National Guard. A similar measure was blocked by Senate Republicans just a few weeks ago, and President Bush would veto it anyway. But this again shows just how much Republicans really "support the troops."

This will probably be the only Iraq-related vote before the August recess because the "Out of Iraq" caucus of House Democrats oppose other measures they consider weak and possibly providing cover for Republicans on the war issue, according to The Hill.

House to take up Iraq war debate where Senate left off

From CQPolitics.com:

With the Senate deadlocked over Iraq, the focus turns to the House, where Democrats plan several votes designed to hasten an end to U.S. involvement in the conflict.

When the House Appropriations Committee takes up a draft fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations bill July 25, it will consider amendments that would set troop readiness standards and ban permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, among others. Also next week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will bring to the full House another Iraq-related measure that aides said is still taking shape...

One likely amendment would establish minimal standards for training and equipping units before deployment. Another would require military personnel spend as much time at home between tours as they do deployed. A third would ban permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Either John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the Defense subcommittee chairman, or James P. Moran, D-Va., a member of the panel, will propose an amendment in the committee that would reduce funding for the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and require the closing of the facility within 180 days, both lawmakers have said.

The Defense appropriations bill won’t come to the House floor until the week before the August recess, meaning that next week’s Iraq vote on the House floor would have to be a stand-alone bill or an amendment to another measure.

Hmm, I wonder what this measure is? The House voted on withdrawal last week, so I'm thinking it's a de-authorization of the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

UPDATE: More than 70 House members wrote to President Bush to declare they will only support additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq for the protection and redeployment of all troops out of Iraq.