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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any comments about marriage equality are welcome in this thread.

The U.S. House passed the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance Act” yesterday on a mostly party-line 234 to 190 vote (roll call). Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities summarized the key features of the proposal:

The plan would lock in cuts over the next ten years at least as severe as those in the [House Budget Committee Chairman Paul] Ryan budget plan that the House passed in April, by writing spending caps into law at the year-by-year levels of spending (as a share of GDP) the Ryan budget contains.

It also would hold the increase in the debt limit needed by August 2 hostage to approval by two-thirds of the House and the Senate of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget every year while effectively barring any increases in revenues.  The constitutional amendment would make all revenue-raising measures unconstitutional unless they secured a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate.

The “Cut, Cap & Balance” measure cites three constitutional balanced-budget amendments (H.J. Res 1, S.J. Res 10, and H.J. Res 56) and states that Congress must approve one of them or a similar measure before the debt limit can be raised.  All three of the cited proposals would require cuts deeper than those in the Ryan budget.  All three measures would establish a constitutional requirement that total federal expenditures may not exceed 18 percent of GDP, and all three would essentially require that the budget be balanced within the coming decade.

The Ryan plan, by contrast, does not reach balance until the 2030s, and its federal spending level is just below or modestly above 20 percent of GDP for most of the next two decades, equaling 20¾ percent of GDP in 2030 for example, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The only budget that comes close to meeting the requirements of these constitutional amendments is the Republican Study Committee budget, which eliminates 70 percent of non-defense discretionary funding by 2021, contains deeper Medicare cuts than the Ryan budget, cuts Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income for the elderly and disabled poor in half by the end of the decade, and raises the Social Security retirement age to 70.

Iowa’s Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) both voted for “cut, cap and balance,” while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against it. I recommend reading Greenstein’s whole analysis or this piece by Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger to get a sense of how ludicrous this plan is. Severe spending cuts would not only hurt the most vulnerable Americans, they would drag down the whole economy. I doubt Republicans believe in this fiscal policy. When the U.S. economy was hurting in late 2001 and 2002, the GOP-controlled House passed big deficit spending to stimulate demand, with the support of a Republican president.

But I digress. Yesterday’s House vote was designed to give Republicans cover. Everyone knows “cut, cap and balance” could never clear the Senate. Even if it did, President Barack Obama would veto the bill.

This vote isn’t just about short-term political battles over the debt ceiling. It will be cited by both parties during next year’s campaigns in Iowa’s new third and fourth Congressional districts. As a preview of campaign rhetoric to come, I’ve posted comments from both sides after the jump. First, Latham makes the case for the bill and pledges not to vote for any debt ceiling increase “without passage of the major features outlined in the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.” Latham voted many times for unbalanced budgets and to raise the debt ceiling while Republicans controlled the House during George W. Bush’s presidency. He’s hoping those votes will slip down the memory hole.

Next, I posted a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press release charging that Latham just voted to “cut, cap and end Medicare.” An almost identical statement went out targeting King.

King didn’t send out a press release on yesterday’s vote, but he has stood with Republicans who demand huge spending cuts and no revenue increases as the price for raising the debt ceiling. After the jump, I posted a DCCC statement highlighting King’s previous votes to increase the debt ceiling. Both King and Latham stopped voting for debt ceiling hikes when Democrats had a House majority from 2007 through 2010.

Final note: two House Republicans who are running for president, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, voted against “cut, cap and balance” yesterday. Bachmann “said the bill does not go far enough to fundamentally restructure the way Washington spends money, and in particular does not go after ‘ObamaCare.'” Paul said “this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario,” because it’s “impossible” to do that without cutting defense spending, Medicare and Social Security.

We already knew Christie Vilsack was running for Congress in the new fourth district, but today she made her candidacy official at events in Ames, Sioux City and Mason City. During her announcement speech and in a video released by her campaign, Vilsack didn’t mention four-term Republican incumbent Steve King by name. However, she drew clear contrasts with his political style, promising to bring the “Iowa values of civility, responsibility and respect” to Washington.

Bleeding Heartland discussed Vilsack’s strong early fundraising here. Follow me after the jump for her announcement video (with transcript) and highlights from her campaign rollout.  

The battle of the incumbents in Iowa’s third Congressional district will be one of the most closely-watched House races in the country in 2012. Yesterday Karl Rove’s 501(c)4 group Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies launched a television commercial targeting eight-term Democrat Leonard Boswell. Similar spots went up against nine other Democratic incumbents, part of a $20 million summer advertising campaign by Crossroads.

Meanwhile, local media have devoted heavy coverage to the reported break-in attempt at Boswell’s southern Iowa farm on Saturday night. The latest comments from Boswell, his wife Dody Boswell, and law enforcement officers are after the jump, along with the Crossroads ad and annotated transcript.

UPDATE: Law enforcement officers have arrested two suspects in the break-in. Details are at the end of this post, along with statements from Leonard and Dody Boswell.

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking on the Senate floor today, Schumer said Oetken

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

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

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

The U.S. House passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 on July 13 by a vote of 239 to 184 (roll call). Leonard Boswell (IA-03) joined Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) to support this bill, which is intended to undermine federal enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Boswell was one of only 16 House Democrats to cross party lines for this bill. He also voted for it on the House Transportation Committee last month. Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted with most House Democrats to reject this assault on water quality regulations. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to approve the bill.

Maplight.org compiled data on contributions to House members by interest groups that support the bill. At that link you can view a list of the 44 organizations that supported the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (mostly industry groups, especially agriculture, energy and mining interests) and the 14 environmental or social justice organizations that opposed the bill. It’s not the first time Boswell has voted with agribusiness against environmental regulation. With him facing a tough re-election match against Latham in the new IA-03, it won’t be the last.

Speaking of the 2012 Congressional races, a forthcoming post will discuss Federal Election Commission financial reports from all the Congressional candidates in Iowa. Campaigns must report to the FEC on their fundraising and expenditures by the end of July 15.

The House of Representatives approved a bill yesterday to extend the National Flood Insurance Program through fiscal year 2016. The overwhelming majority (406 votes in favor) included Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03), as well as Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). After the jump I’ve posted statements from Loebsack and Boswell on this bill. Loebsack’s press release mentions key improvements to the federal flood insurance program and highlights an amendment he proposed, which the House approved by voice vote. A video of Loebsack’s speech to the House introducing that amendment is also after the jump. He has worked extensively on flood-related issues in Congress since the historic 2008 floods devastated population centers in his district.

Boswell’s press release highlighted an amendment he submitted, which was intended to help flood victims in three additional ways. That amendment failed on a 181 to 244 vote just before final passage of the bill. Notably, Latham and King were two of only three House Republicans to vote for Boswell’s amendment. Both will run for re-election in 2012 in districts affected by this summer’s Missouri River flooding.

Federal flood insurance has had bipartisan support in the past, but King’s votes yesterday suggest a change of heart. In July 2010, he was the only Iowan to vote against a similar House bill to extend the National Flood Insurance Program. At that time, King didn’t publicize his opposition, and I didn’t see any statement about yesterday’s House vote on his official website.

Presumably King changed his position because the Missouri River has devastated parts of western Iowa this summer (for details, check the Iowa Homeland Security website). In fact, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack signed an agricultural disaster designation last week for 14 counties in IA-05. King did announce that aid in a press release I’ve posted after the jump. It lists the affected counties and explains the kinds of federal assistance available to farm operators. King is proud of his vote against federal aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina, but when a natural disaster affects his own constituents, “big government” looks a lot more appealing.

In other Congressional news, Iowa’s House delegation split on party lines yesterday over a bill “aimed at repealing a slew of light bulb efficiency standards.” Latham and King joined most Republicans supporting this bill; Braley, Loebsack and Boswell voted no. Although 233 representatives voted for the bill and only 193 against it, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act failed to pass because it was brought to the floor “under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority,” Andrew Restuccia reported.

Representative Dave Loebsack has closed on a new house in Iowa City, a move that will enable him to run for re-election next year in Iowa’s second Congressional district. The new map of political boundaries put Loebsack’s longtime Linn County home in the first district, represented by fellow Democrat Bruce Braley. Loebsack announced plans to move into IA-02 the first day Iowa’s map was proposed.

Loebsack said he chose Iowa City in order to be close to his son, daughter-in-law and grandchild. Johnson County has the second-largest population in the new IA-02 and is Iowa’s most Democratic-leaning county by far, with more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans. As of July 2011, the county dominated by Iowa City and its suburbs contained 40,177 registered Democrats, 18,275 Republicans and 31,927 no-party voters.

Since winning the 2006 election, Loebsack has represented Iowa’s current IA-02, which has a partisan voting index of D+7. In other words, in last two presidential elections, the current IA-02 voted about seven points more Democratic than the national average. Loebsack won re-election in 2008 by more than a 20-point margin against Mariannette Miller-Meeks, but he was sweating it last fall. Both his campaign and the and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put up negative television commercials against repeat GOP nominee Miller-Meeks (see here, here and here). Loebsack ended up winning by a 51.0 percent to 45.9 percent margin.

The new IA-02 has a partisan voting index of about D+4. According to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, the Congressional district contained 503,218 active registered voters as of July 2011: 178,562 registered Democrats, 139,359 Republicans, and 184,692 no-party voters.

Not only does Loebsack’s new district lean slightly less Democratic, the incumbent has never represented its most populous county. Scott County includes the Iowa side of the Quad Cities. As of July 2011, it contained 36,303 registered Democrats, 30,305 Republicans and 46,914 no-party voters. Braley lost Scott County in his narrow 2010 win over Republican Ben Lange in IA-01. Lange said in May that he will not move to IA-02 to challenge Loebsack. He has not ruled out a rematch against Braley in the new IA-01.

On July 6, Republican John Archer announced that he has filed paperwork to run for Congress in IA-02. Archer lives in Bettendorf, one of the Quad Cities, and is senior legal counsel for the John Deere company. He also serves on the Pleasant Valley school board. So far Archer’s campaign website has only buttons for donors and volunteers and a link to the candidate’s Facebook page. After the jump I’ve posted the full text of his campaign announcement.

Last month another Scott County Republican, Dan Dolan of Blue Grass, said he would challenge Loebsack in 2012.

Dolan, who has operated Dan Dolan Homes in Davenport for 20 years, said his decision to run is motivated by frustration with what he describes as “professional politicians.” […] Dolan is upset with the nation’s accumulation of debt and what he sees as an unwillingness by those already in office to do anything about it. […]

Dolan said the recent congressional redistricting in Iowa helped motivate him to consider running for office. He noted that the new district boundaries comprise a large portion of the areas where his company has a presence with housing developments.

According to dandolanhomes.com, Dolan’s company has housing developments in Davenport, Muscatine, Blue Grass, Clinton, LeClaire and Iowa City.

Democratic-leaning Clinton County is the third most-populous in the new IA-02, and Loebsack has not represented that county before either. Braley carried Clinton against Lange in 2010.

UPDATE: Tea party activist Richard Gates announced plans last month to run for the Republican nomination in IA-02. He is a veteran and machinist from Keokuk (Lee County), and also midwest administrator for the conservative group 912 Patriots for Action. Inspired by Glenn Beck, he became active in politics in early 2009. He supports replacing all income and corporate taxes with a consumption tax (the so-called “fair tax” reform). During the last election cycle, Gates endorsed Chris Reed, who finished third out of four candidates in the IA-02 primary.

Lee County leans Democratic, but it has one of the highest unemployment rates in Iowa. Loebsack barely led Miller-Meeks there in 2010.

Advocates for more sustainable food and agriculture policies are alarmed by cutbacks Des Moines Register management announced last week. Closing the newspaper’s Washington bureau and laying off agriculture correspondent Philip Brasher will leave the public less informed about decision-making in the capital, with implications far beyond the Register’s circulation area in Iowa.

U.S. House members lack consensus on the three-month-old military intervention in Libya, and so do Iowa’s five representatives to that body, judging from two votes taken on June 24. Details on the failed attempts to either authorize or defund our mission in Libya are after the jump.

Yesterday the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved H.R. 2018, the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.” Environmental groups have dubbed this legislation the “Dirty Water Bill of 2011.” Iowa Democrat Leonard Boswell was in the majority that approved the bill 35 to 19, even though no the committee held no public hearings to determine the bill’s impact on water pollution. The roll call (pdf) shows that 30 Republicans and five Democrats voted yes, while 18 Democrats and one Republican voted no.

H.R. 2018 would amend the Clean Water Act “to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.” The House Transportation Committee says the bill “restricts EPA’s ability to second-guess or delay a state’s permitting and water quality certification decisions under the CWA after the federal agency has already approved a state’s program.” So, in states where major polluting industries have political clout, citizens would lose federal water quality protections. As Kate Sheppard observes, “In practice this would mean each individual state gets oversight over water policy, taking us back to the days of the Cuyahoga River fire and Love Canal, before Congress passed a federal law in 1972.”

Members of Congress introduced this bill last month in response to draft guidelines that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers released in April. Those guidelines were designed to address two Supreme Court rulings from the past decade, which “narrowly interpreted the scope of waters covered by the [Clean Water] Act, putting in doubt pollution safeguards for many vital wetlands, lakes and streams.” Click here for more background on those court rulings.

Boswell is the only Iowan currently serving on the transportation committee. His office did not release a statement on H.R. 2018 and has not yet responded to my request for comment on why he voted for this bill. I will update this post with Boswell’s explanation if and when I receive it. The EPA has said that agricultural runoff is the biggest source of pollution in U.S. waterways. Boswell’s voting record has generally aligned with agribusiness interests, and it’s been obvious for decades that Iowa policy-makers have failed to adequately control agricultural pollution.

Eight-term incumbent Boswell faces a tough re-election contest next year against nine-term Republican Representative Tom Latham in the Iowa’s new third Congressional district. It’s a relatively balanced district in terms of voter registration, but Latham is likely to have much more money to spend on his campaign. To win another term, Boswell will need to outperform the top of the Democratic ticket in rural areas of the new IA-03.

After the jump I’ve posted the full text of H.R. 2018, along with a Sierra Club statement describing it as “the most significant weakening of the Clean Water Act since Congress enacted comprehensive federal clean water legislation in 1972.” During yesterday’s committee meeting, Democrat Tim Bishop of New York offered an amendment seeking to neutralize this bill. His amendment stated that none of the provisions in the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act “would apply to waters that are a source for public drinking water, provide flood protection, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat, or are coastal recreational waters.” The committee defeated his amendment by voice vote.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Still no comment from Boswell’s office on this vote. I have added below the House Transportation Committee’s summary of H.R. 2018.

President Barack Obama announced a slight change in our Afghanistan policy on television last night.

[S]tarting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

He asserted that the U.S. undertakes this drawdown “from a position of strength,” as the Al Qaeda terrorist network is now “under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.” He said the U.S. can achieve its goal to allow “no safe-haven” from which terorists “can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies.” Obama also linked his gradual drawdown to boosting the U.S. economy:

Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. […]

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

We’d have more resources to invest in the U.S. economy if we were bringing more troops home sooner. By the end of next summer our troop presence in Afghanistan will still be larger than it was when Obama became president. He ordered at least 21,000 additional U.S. troops to that war zone before the surge of 30,000 troops he announced at West Point in December 2009. Recent polling suggests a majority of Americans support withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at a faster pace.

We’d also be better positioned to “focus on nation building” at home if the president had not agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts and bought into the austerity politics that makes another federal stimulus package unthinkable.

After the jump I’ve posted the full text of Obama’s televised remarks, along with comments released by Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03). Boswell praised Obama’s plan “to significantly reduce troops by the end of the year” as “an important first step in lessening our military presence and financial obligations in Afghanistan.” In contrast, Harkin said U.S. troops should be brought home from Afghanistan at a faster pace, saying, “We cannot justify the continued loss of life” and “can’t sustain the nearly $10 billion we are spending each month in Afghanistan this year.” Harkin questioned our presence in Afghanistan following the killing of Osama bin Laden. He was among 27 U.S. senators (24 Democrats, two Republicans and one independent) who wrote to Obama earlier this month urging “a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.”

I will update this post if other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation comment on Obama’s speech. Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) is the only Iowan on the House Armed Services Committee. Last month Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) called for “immediate withdrawal of our combat troops from Afghanistan,” bringing them home by the end of this year.

In related news, the U.S. Senate on June 21 unanimously confirmed Leon Panetta as the new Secretary of Defense. Greg Jaffe reported on outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ reaction to Obama’s speech last night:

“I support the President’s decision because it provides our commanders with enough resources, time and, perhaps most importantly, flexibility to bring the surge to a successful conclusion.” It’s clear that Gates would have preferred the surge troops stay in place through the end of 2012. But his statement suggests he still believes that the military will have enough forces to continue with the current counterinsurgency strategy.

UPDATE: Braley’s statement is now also below. He doesn’t agree with Obama’s plan and wants troops to come home sooner.

LATE UPDATE: Loebsack’s statement is now below.

Catching up on news from Congress, the U.S. House on June 16 approved an Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. House Republican leaders worked hard to whip up support for the bill, which squeaked through on a 217 to 203 vote (roll call). Of Iowa’s five House members, only Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) voted for final passage. He is close to House Speaker John Boehner. Steve King (IA-05) was among 19 Republicans to vote no; that group included “tea party” favorites like Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Every Democrat present voted against the agriculture appropriations measure, including Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03).

Latham did not send out a news release on passage of this bill, which is odd, since he serves on the House Appropriations Committee. Then again, Latham also didn’t officially comment on House passage of the Defense Authorization Act last month.

Many Democrats opposed the agriculture appropriations bill because of big spending cuts like $600 million less for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program and a $30 million less for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That commission is supposed to protect the public from fraud and manipulation of commodities markets. Loebsack and Boswell didn’t release statements explaining their vote against the agriculture appropriations legislation, despite the fact that Boswell serves on the House Agriculture Committee. Braley charged that the bill would hurt the Iowa economy in this statement to the media on June 16:

“Since the start of this Congress, we’ve seen a sustained attack on Iowa farmers and our state’s economy. This bill is just the latest to threaten the thousands of jobs that depend on agriculture and the ethanol industry. I voted against previous bills that threatened Iowa jobs and I voted against this bill today because I will always stand up for Iowa farmers, jobs and our middle class families.”

King didn’t draw attention to his vote against final passage of the appropriations measure, but he hailed the House votes on both of his amendments (only one of which passed). King’s statements and background on his amendments are after the jump. I also discuss how the Iowa delegation voted on other important amendments brought to the floor during two hours of debate. Sometimes all five Iowans voted the same way, sometimes they split on party lines, and sometimes King stood alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Philip Brasher writes for the Des Moines Register,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among Iowa’s Congressional delegation, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) continues to be the only consistent voice against President Barack Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Since shortly after the U.S. joined NATO air strikes against Libyan targets, Braley has demanded a full cost accounting of our country’s third major military conflict, as well as details on an exit strategy. When the U.S. House considered two Libya resolutions on June 3, all five Iowan representatives voted for a toothless option criticizing the administration’s actions. However, only Braley voted for a stronger resolution that would have required the U.S. to withdraw from NATO operations in Libya within 15 days.

After the votes, Braley criticized the White House for giving “nothing but vague explanations” about our Libya intervention. Meanwhile, Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) made no public statement on Friday’s House votes, in keeping with their reluctance to comment on Libya during the past two months. In a June 3 press release, Representative Steve King called on Obama to give Americans more “answers” about the intervention. King’s votes and public statements about Libya don’t make clear where he stands on this conflict, though, or on the president’s power to conduct war without Congressional consent.

Details on the Libya resolutions are after the jump, along with some analysis of recent comments from Braley and King.

Iowa’s five U.S. House representatives split on party lines when the House approved a 2012 budget for the Homeland Security department on June 2. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted with most of their caucus for the bill, which significantly reduces Homeland Security appropriations from current levels. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against the bill, as did all but 17 House Democrats.

Follow me after the jump for more about how the Iowans voted on notable Homeland Security budget amendments. I also discuss various amendments King tried to add to this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details on the votes and proposals are after the jump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

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

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

Last week, Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) brought up the need to end oil subsidies repeatedly during an Iowa Public Television appearance. This week, Boswell and other House Democrats requested “a full House Agriculture Committee hearing and investigation into the relationship between rising oil prices and Wall Street speculators.” So I was surprised to see Boswell vote for an offshore drilling bill the House approved on May 5.

Details on yesterday’s votes and Boswell’s recent statements on oil policy are after the jump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nine-term incumbent Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and eight-term incumbent Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) will face off next year in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Latham spoke about the 2012 campaign today, making his first public remarks on the subject since he confirmed he would run against Boswell. Highlights from his comments are after the jump, along with Boswell’s first preview of how he will compare his record to Latham’s.

Representatives Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) are among 50 House Republicans the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is targeting this week in robocalls to their new districts. King will run for re-election in Iowa’s newly-drawn fourth district in 2012; his likely Democratic opponent is Christie Vilsack. Latham will run in the new third district against Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell. The automated phone calls highlight the April 15 vote for Paul Ryan’s budget, which would transform Medicare over time into a voucher program through which seniors could buy private health insurance. Here’s the script:

Hi, this is Claire from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee calling about Congressman Tom Latham’s vote to end Medicare.

Everyone agrees we must cut spending and tighten our belt, but Congressman Latham has made all the wrong choices.  He actually voted to end Medicare, rather than end taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil making record profits or tax breaks for the ultra rich!

Seniors who pay a lifetime into Medicare deserve the benefits they’ve earned. Under the Latham-Republican plan Medicare ends, benefits to seniors are less, and costs to seniors increase – in order to pay for Big Oil taxpayer giveaways and the ultra rich’s tax breaks.

America is built on shared sacrifice.  Tom Latham is choosing to place the burden on seniors.  That’s not right.

Please call Congressman Latham at (515) 232-2885 and tell him to keep his hands off our Medicare!

The robocall against King uses the same script, substituting King’s name for Latham’s and giving King’s phone number at the end: (712) 224-4692.

The DCCC clearly sees Medicare as a central issue for the 2012 campaign. The new IA-03 and especially the new IA-04 contain a higher-than-average proportion of senior citizens. I think most incumbent Republicans will be able to explain away this vote, saying changes to Medicare wouldn’t affect current beneficiaries and Democrats have also voted for cuts to the program.

The 501(c)4 organization Americans United for Change started running a television commercial against King this week, also focusing on Medicare. Mark Langgin posted the video in this diary. He notes that Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey found Christie Vilsack’s favorables to be better than King’s statewide. Too bad she’ll be running against him only in the 39 counties that make up the new IA-04.

Former First Lady Christie Vilsack announced Wednesday that she will move to Ames next month and “continue to explore the possibility of representing Iowa in the US House of Representatives.” A Christie Vilsack for Iowa Facebook page and Christie Vilsack for Iowa website launched today as well. Vilsack’s statement and more news on the IA-04 race are after the jump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing “a Democratic source in the Hawkeye State,” Nathan Gonzales blogged at the Rothenberg Political Report that former First Lady Christie Vilsack “is likely” to run against Steve King in Iowa’s new fourth Congressional district. Vilsack “has not yet made a final decision,” according to this unnamed source.

Sounds to me like an Iowa Democrat wants to show Vilsack how favorably a campaign against Mr. “10 Worst” would be received. However, I would be very surprised to see Vilsack run in the state’s most Republican-leaning district, rather than in the Democratic-leaning second district in southeast Iowa. If she won a primary against Dave Loebsack, she would be almost assured of winning the general election in IA-02.

On the other hand, the new IA-04, containing 39 counties in northwest, north-central and northeast Iowa, is less of a hopeless cause for Democrats than King’s current district. John Kerry won just over 44 percent of the vote in the counties that will be in IA-04, and Obama took just over 48 percent of the vote there.

If Democrats do recruit a strong candidate in the new IA-04, there will be plenty of small-dollar donors and volunteers willing to help retire King. But King has passionate supporters too, far beyond heavily Republican northwest Iowa.

Spin your own 2012 Congressional election scenario in this thread.

P.S.: Suzy Khimm of Mother Jones asked King this week about a Republican proposal to raise the qualifying age for Social Security:

Not every House Republican seemed so excited about [Senator Lindsey] Graham’s plan. Even on the party’s right flank, some members seemed wary of tackling Social Security, long described as the untouchable “third rail” of politics. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a well-known flamethrower within the party, demurred when asked about the issue. “It’s a delicate thing,” King said. “I represent perhaps the most senior congressional district in America. I’m not in a position where I can speak about [Social Security reform] publicly.”

According to the National Journal, 16.8 percent of the residents in King’s current district are at least 65 years old; that makes IA-05 the 18th “grayest” district in the country. The current IA-04 is the 37th “grayest,” with about 15.9 percent of residents at least 65 years old. I don’t know the exact figure for the new IA-04.

Governor Terry Branstad announced this morning that he will sign the redistricting bill approved yesterday by the Iowa House and Senate. While taping an episode of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program, Branstad asserted that all four Congressional districts will be competitive.

I’ve posted the Congressional district map after the jump. Click here to view the state House and Senate district maps and other redistricting information on the Iowa legislature’s official site.

Soon after Branstad’s announcement, Representative Tom Latham sent his supportersan e-mail announcing his plans to run for Congress in Iowa’s new third district. I don’t blame him for wanting to avoid a Republican primary against Steve King in the new fourth district. Latham’s move sets up a contest between him and Democrat Leonard Boswell, who lives in Polk County. Boswell currently represents Polk County, the largest in the district. Latham currently represents Warren, Dallas and Madison counties.

Boswell’s campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee already released statements about Latham’s plans today. I’ve posted those after the jump. Boswell is on the DCCC’s list of “Frontline” incumbents who may be vulnerable in 2012. The DCCC will hit Latham and other Republicans hard over their vote today for Paul Ryan’s fiscal year 2012 budget resolution. Boswell’s statement emphasized his connection to the district, noting that during his political career he has represented nearly 70 percent of the new IA-03 population. Boswell served three terms in the Iowa Senate before winning his first term in Congress.

In other redistricting news, State Representative Janet Petersen announced today that she will run for the Iowa Senate in the new district 18 (map). She was first elected to House district 64 in northwest Des Moines in 2000. I’ve posted Petersen’s campaign announcement below.

Any comments about the new maps or Iowa elections in 2012 are welcome in this thread. I will update the post if more state House and Senate candidates announce plans to move, retire or run for higher office.

UPDATE: Boswell spoke to Shane D’Aprile of The Hill this week:

“I would just say that I’ve had a tough race every time and that’s what I expect,” said Boswell, adding that his new district will have “half the counties I’ve served before anyway.”

“The one thing [Latham] would have to think about, or even King for that matter, if he were to move south, is that if you’re going to represent the capital city, you better be ready for a tough competition every year,” Boswell said. “So they’ll have to really think about that. Whereas if one of them wins that new 4th district, they could probably coast a little bit by comparison.”  

SECOND UPDATE: No surprise, King confirmed he is running for re-election in the new fourth district.

THIRD UPDATE: Branstad signed the redistricting plan into law on April 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve King’s recorded voice greeted me when I picked up the phone at about 6:30 pm today. He asked if I was registered to vote; I said yes. He wanted to ask a few questions about a very important issue. Did I support the “total repeal of Obamacare”? Not thinking like a blogger, I gave the “wrong” answer to this question (no), so King’s voice thanked me for my time and ended the phone call. He said the call was paid for by the King for Congress committee and gave a 712 area code phone number (my phone showed that the call came from the Washington, DC area).

I live in Polk County, and the only voters in my household are registered Democrats. At least one household I know of, containing only Democrats in Dallas County, received the same robocall. I don’t know whether King is calling district-wide or just in the IA-03 counties he hasn’t represented before. The proposed third district (map) contains 12 counties King currently represents: Pottawattamie, Mills, Fremont, Cass, Montgomery, Page, Adair, Adams, Taylor, Union, Ringgold, and Guthrie. It also contains three counties Republican Tom Latham currently represents: Warren, Madison and Dallas. Democrat Leonard Boswell represents the largest county in the district, Polk, containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs.  

A request for Bleeding Heartland readers who get King’s call: please let me know what questions follow if you answer yes, you support the total repeal of Obamacare. Also, it would be helpful to know what county you live in and whether your household includes registered Democrats only, or also no-party voters and Republicans. You can either post a comment in this thread or e-mail me confidentially: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

If King is trying to identify Democrats in IA-03 who share his stance on health care reform, then presumably he has not ruled out moving to this district to avoid a GOP primary against Latham in the new IA-04. The new fourth district has a Republican tilt, whereas the new third district is almost evenly balanced politically. The proposed IA-03 voted 51.9 percent Obama, 45.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 47.1 percent Kerry, 52.1 percent Bush in 2004. The proposed IA-04 voted 48.1 percent Obama, 49.8 percent McCain in 2008, and 44.2 percent Kerry, 55.0 percent Bush in 2004.

I believe it would be foolish for King to run in IA-03; my hunch is that a lot of Polk County independents and even Republicans would vote for Latham but not King. Then again, Latham would be unbeatable in the new IA-04, where he has represented 35 of the 39 counties. King would be strongly favored in IA-04 but perhaps vulnerable against the right Democratic candidate, especially in a presidential year.

UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user rurallib describes the rest of this phone call, as heard way over in eastern Iowa (Muscatine County). King obviously isn’t thinking about running for Congress in the second district, so perhaps he is robocalling statewide to identify and raise money from health care reform-haters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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