Tag: us congress
A Power Congress Grabbed, Then Rarely Used

A Power Congress Grabbed, Then Rarely Used

By David Hawkings, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Twenty years ago, it was enacted as a classically obscure legislative rider, an opaquely worded few paragraphs, crafted by both parties, which each side agreed to keep quiet before its insertion into sprawling must-pass legislation focused on a wholly different issue.

Fifteen years ago, when the provision was first put to use, some lawmakers decried the unleashing of an “atom bomb” that would topple the balance of powers and neutralize the authority of federal regulators.

Now, though, it’s widely understood to have proven a legislative damp squib. And that reputation was reinforced on the final Senate roll call of last week, which brought an anticlimactic end to a fight Republicans have been pursuing for a year against the Obama administration’s efforts to subject more small waterways to environmental regulation.

The vote was the last parliamentary move the GOP had at its disposal under the clunky procedures of that 1996 measure, grandly dubbed the Congressional Review Act, which in theory gives the legislative branch the power (if it acts quickly) to rip from the Federal Register new rules written by the executive branch.

After two decades on the books, the score from the dozen publicized and sustained showdowns waged using that law is: Presidents 11, Congress 1.

The only time the lawmakers prevailed was the first time the process was tested, in the winter of 2001. Republicans newly in control of the Capitol, in something of a surprise attack, passed legislation to repeal regulations on repetitive motion injuries and other workplace ergonomics issues that had been made final in the closing days of the Clinton administration. And the new GOP president, George W. Bush, was happy to sign a measure that got the last word on his Democratic predecessor, overjoyed his friends in the business community and infuriated organized labor.

“It’s only the beginning!” crowed the House majority whip, Texan Tom DeLay, predicting the GOP would swiftly apply its unheralded Contract With America win to undo a range of rules set at the end of the Clinton era. Many Democrats used the nuclear weapon analogy to reflect their anxiety about the law’s lasting legacy of damage: It prohibits regulators from coming up with replacement rules that are “substantially the same” as what Congress has undone. (This frustration was despite the fact that a main player in getting the language inserted into a bill raising the debt limit was Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, then just starting up the rungs of the Democratic leadership ladder.)

Neither dramatic prediction has come true, in part because the Washington power structure and timing of the controversial rule making have never again been so advantageous: A regulation imposed by a president of one party at the end of his term is left vulnerable to dismantling in the early days of unified government under the opposite party.

That scenario looms in a year, of course. If the GOP wins the White House while holding the Senate as well as the House, then any regulations finalized during or after the lame-duck session would remain vulnerable into the spring of 2017. In this case, the law gives a new Congress 75 legislative days to make its move.

Absent that scenario, however, President Barack Obama’s regulatory legacy is safe from further efforts on the Hill at outright and lasting nullification. (De facto congressional deregulation through the denial of appropriations, albeit just one year at a time, is a different matter. And there’s no stopping the steady flow of litigation hoping to negate many rulemaking decisions.)

Republicans have used the law to go after a range of Obama’s labor, health care and environmental regulations, and four of their crusades during the past year have pushed legislation as far as the desktop in the Oval Office — where they’ve accounted for almost half the vetoes of this presidency.

Given that the GOP is currently 13 members short of veto-proof majority in the Senate and 44 short in the House, there was never any doubt that Obama would prevail. Last May, Republicans abandoned their effort to repeal a National Relations Labor Board rule designed to speed the timetable for holding union organizing elections, joining a 96-3 vote against even debating a veto override.

And there are no known plans for symbolic votes to countermand Obama’s December rejections of twinned bills cleared last fall. One would have repealed his EPA rules for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants, the other would have thwarted his regulations of existing energy generators.

(The chamber where a vetoed bill originated gets the first shot at mustering the two-thirds vote required to re-pass the measure, and all the anti-Obama-regulation efforts started in the Senate. There’s no constitutional mandate Congress consider an override, but that has been the practice with few exceptions in recent decades.)

But Republicans decided to stick with tradition last week. At issue was what’s come to be known, from farm country to sprawling suburbia, as the WOTUS rule — for “waters of the United States.” Regulations issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers would put perhaps 3 percent more of the nation’s streams and wetlands under federal jurisdiction, meaning permit requirements for potential polluters — a farmer wanting to dam a brook to create a livestock pond, for example, or a developer planning to build houses in a marshland.

Bigger rivers and lakes are already covered by the Clean Water Act, but a series of Supreme Court rulings have created uncertainty about how far upstream that law reaches. The rules are supposed to give clarity. Conservatives see them as usurping the rights of states and private property owners.

The original House and Senate votes to repeal WOTUS were closely along party lines, meaning not close to sufficient for an override. And even deliberating the veto in the Senate effectively requires 60 votes. The Republicans mustered just 52, with 49 of their own joined by three red-state Democrats. Underscoring the Quixotic nature of the moment, the senators missing included both leading GOP presidential candidates, Texan Ted Cruz and Floridian Marco Rubio.

©2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: The U.S. Capitol dome and U.S. Senate (R) in Washington, August 2, 2011. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst   

Congressional Budget Office: Economy Grows, But So Does Deficit, Thanks To Tax Breaks

Congressional Budget Office: Economy Grows, But So Does Deficit, Thanks To Tax Breaks

By Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy is on track to expand “solidly” this year, but the federal deficit is creeping up again, thanks in large part to a package of tax breaks enacted by Congress last year, officials said Tuesday.

Rising consumer demand is expected to boost the economy this year and next, potentially encouraging growth in both wages and employment, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said. The unemployment rate is expected to dip to 4.5 percent by year’s end.

“CBO anticipates that the economy will expand solidly this year and next,” according to the report. “Increases in demand for goods and services are expected to reduce the quantity of underused labor and capital, or ‘slack,’ in the economy — thereby encouraging greater participation in the labor force by reducing the unemployment rate and pushing up compensation.”

The official budget scorekeeper released the annual budget and economic summary one week ahead of schedule to give lawmakers a head start in drafting federal budgets. A full report is due next week.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) wants to launch the budget process early this year. As the architect of the GOP’s previous austerity plans, Ryan says he wants to give voters a clear alternative to Democrats heading into the 2016 election.

While the economic outlook is gradually improving, deficits — which had been declining since the Great Recession — will rise again in 2016 to $544 billion, CBO said.

That’s a $105 billion increase over last year, and $130 billion higher than what had been forecast in August.

“Much of that amount stems from the extension of tax provisions,” the report said.

Overall, revenues are expected to rise by 4 percent, but spending is increasing by 6 percent in 2016, leading to the imbalance.

The rising deficit, to 2.9 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, is the first jump in years and comes after deficits had been falling under President Barack Obama from a peak of 9.8 percent in 2009, the report said.

Increasing deficits will pile on to the nation’s already sizable $18 trillion debt load, leading to higher interest costs in the years to come. CBO said interest payments will double over the decade.

Congress and the White House are about to launch the annual budget process, producing blueprints that often serve more as inspirational documents outlining party priorities than actual fiscal plans.

Already, spending levels for this fiscal year and next are set under a budget accord reached between Congress and the administration last year.

As part of last year’s budget deal, Congress also extended or made permanent dozens of tax breaks for individuals and corporations — including those for business expenses and the working poor, as well as others for specialty industries like racetracks. It was a rare bipartisan compromise.

Congress has until Sept. 30 to approve legislation to fund the government at the already-approved spending levels or risk a shutdown.

©2016 Tribune Co. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) holds a weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington January 7, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Judicial Watch Wants More Information On Congressional Delegation Travel

Judicial Watch Wants More Information On Congressional Delegation Travel

By Alex Gangitano, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department has a lawsuit on its hands over lawmakers jetting off together.

The group Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking records about official congressional delegation travel, also known as CODELs. Air Force jets and personnel usually are the means of travel for CODELs, and Judicial Watch is looking for records concerning travel costs.

“Congress, under both Republicans and Democrats, has a long record of abusing taxpayers and the military with wasteful ‘official’ travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a press release.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., has declined to use Air Force jets to travel between Wisconsin and Washington, which former Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, also did.

In 2009, Judicial Watch knocked Rep. Nancy Pelosi for what it said was the “abuse” of using Air Force jets to travel between her congressional district and Washington when the California Democrat was speaker. The practice was utilized because of her place in the presidential succession process, behind the vice president.

In August, the group requested congressional travel records from the Air Force and was “ignored,” according to its release. The request involved records regarding mission-taskings of flights escorting members, transportation costs for members, passenger manifests for transporting members and weekly travel reports for members.

Judicial Watch has also previously sued for information on President Barack Obama’s presidential travels and how much taxpayers pay for them.

©2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: Members of the House of Representatives meet on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2015 in Washington, DC

Democratic Party Chair Faces Multiple Challenges

Democratic Party Chair Faces Multiple Challenges

By Anthony Man, Sun Sentinel (TNS)

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — From the gyrocopter pilot who landed on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to angry supporters of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to feminist activists and supporters of medical marijuana, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is facing a barrage of criticism from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

They’re complaining about her stewardship of the Democratic National Committee, with some demanding her ouster. They’re raising Cain about statements attributed to her about marijuana and complacency among young female voters.

And they’re trying to apply pressure at home in South Florida, with vows to challenge her in the August Democratic primary aimed at denying her a seventh term in Congress.

“There’s a new round of land mines that she has figured out a way to step in here. Every time she manages to pull herself out of the morass, she manages to figure out a way to step back in it,” said Ben Pollara, a South Florida political strategist and Wasserman Schultz critic.

“What it means, what will come of it, I have no idea,” Pollara said.

Tim Canova and Doug Hughes hope it means she won’t continue as the region’s most prominent member of Congress.

Canova, a professor of law and public finance at Nova Southeastern University, and Hughes, the now-fired letter carrier awaiting sentencing for his gyrocopter flight through restricted airspace and landing on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol last year, are seeking the Democratic congressional nomination in the Broward/Miami-Dade County 23rd Congressional District.

Barbara Effman, president of the West Broward Democratic Club, and Andrew Weinstein, a Coral Springs Democrat who was a major fundraiser for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, said they don’t think today’s currents will sink Wasserman Schultz.

Weinstein said he doesn’t see a premature end to Wasserman Schultz’s term as Democratic National Committee chairwoman (which runs through the end of the year). And neither Weinstein nor Effman thinks she’ll lose the Democratic congressional primary (which takes place Aug. 30).

Wasserman Schultz, who has been in public office in South Florida since 1992, is used to criticism. For years it’s been a constant refrain from Republicans. Last year it came from some Jewish community leaders who were angry that Wasserman Schultz, the state’s first Jewish congresswoman, supported the Obama agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

And as Obama’s handpicked chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee since 2011, Wasserman Schultz has been a nationwide voice of the party and a frequent lighting rod for criticism.

“Find me the Democratic chair that hasn’t been bumped and bruised through their tenure,” she told the Sun Sentinel. “There is always something. I’m never going to be able to please everybody all of the time.”

One of her predecessors as Democratic chairman, Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor and Philadelphia major, likened the job to being the mayor of a big city. “If you’re mayor and everybody loves you, it guarantees you that you’re not doing anything,” he said in a telephone interview. “You tick people off. You’ve got to be decisive, and I think Debbie has been decisive.”

The current wave of criticism comes largely from supporters of Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Many of his fans believe Wasserman Schultz has used the party to help Hillary Clinton’s candidacy at Sanders’ expense.

For example, they think she authorized a small number of debates among the 2016 Democratic presidential candidates and holding them on nights with relatively low viewership to help Clinton.

“That’s ridiculous. I don’t know how many times I have to say it,” Wasserman Schultz said last week.

She said the Sunday night debate in Charleston, S.C., wasn’t scheduled in the middle of what is a holiday weekend for many in order to reduce viewership. She said it was scheduled during the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend on the recommendation of black Democratic members of Congress. It’s in Charleston because of the massacre of black churchgoers there last year. And it’s on a night when it would get network TV exposure on NBC.

Critics have also seized on two comments in a heavily condensed interview published Jan. 6 by The New York Times magazine. She was quoted as saying that young women who have grown up in the age of the Roe v. Wade ruling from the Supreme Court guaranteeing abortion rights are “complacent.”

Wasserman Schultz said that wasn’t an attack on those who are voting and active. “Of course I’m not talking to them. I’m talking to the millions of young women who don’t take the time to vote, that don’t take the time to pay attention to the fact that their rights are under attack,” she said. “I make no apologies for sounding that alarm bell, and I will continue to sound it. That’s my job.”

Proponents of medical marijuana, like Pollara, a leader of the effort in Florida, were critical of the suggestion in the interview that marijuana use could lead to more use of hard-core drugs such as heroin.

Online petitions run by liberal groups Credo Action and Roots Action, which allow people to click and express their displeasure, now have more than 100,000 people who say Wasserman Schultz should resign or be removed as party chairwoman.

Pollara said he doesn’t see an imminent Wasserman Schultz departure. Rendell said once Clinton or Sanders locks up enough support to become the de facto Democratic nominee, it’s up to that person to decide who will run the party. “The putative nominee takes over the DNC.”

Effman, who leads one of the largest political clubs in the county, said Wasserman Schultz has a deep reservoir of support.

“In her district they love her. She votes the way they want,” Effman said. “She shows up at everything, and you would almost never realize that she is out of town. She takes care of her district and the voters of her district are very committed to her.”

©2016 Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: studio08denver via Flickr