In what can be variously described as the law of unintended consequences, a series of lucky breaks, or a sign that Congress opposes progressive legislation just to oppose the DFH's proposing it, much of the best progressive legislation in 2010 was achieved unintentionally.
To put it a different way, four of the biggest blows against corporate and Wall Street power that happened in Congress over the past three months, or appear likely to happen in the next month, were the result of conservative political pressure that resulted in unexpected outcomes. Consider (more in the extended entry):
Still unclear as to who is pushing the delay: The culprit behind the delay can still be best described as "centrist Democrats" and "the financial services industry." As of this time, there are still few other specifics. I have heard second hand rumors that the New Democrats coordinated the delay in order to "flex some muscle." This would make sense, since the New Democrats have been public about feeling left out of the state of play in the House recently, and have indicated that they are going to target financial services regulations as a means of regaining influence. However, trying to get even more specific than "New Democrats" has been difficult, as the individual names I have heard behind the delay and water down effort are contradicted by my different sources.
On Ellen Tauscher: Two days ago, I asked Open Left readers to contact Representative Ellen Tauscher's office, urging her to stop listening to the financial services industry, and start listening to threatened homeowners. Her communications director contacted me today to point out that she voted in favor of the rule on HR 1106, which implies support. Also, I was told that Tauscher has not met with one member or representative of the financial services industry on this bill, but did work closely with the Judiciary committee which sent the bill to the House floor. In the extended entry, I provide a list of ways that her office indicated she was working to "strengthen" the bill, rather than "water it down."
A more complicated relationship: This week, on a couple of occasions, I have implied a crude, quid pro quo relationship between centrist Democrats and corporate PACs. The actual relationship, of course, is a bit more complicated. In particular, many centrist Dems simply see eye to eye with the corporate lobbyists who funnel PAC money their way, and no real arm twisting is needed. The corporate PACs are simply supporting like-minded individuals, many of whom have a background in the industry (such as Representative Tauscher, who worked on Wall Street). These Representatives are rarely working at the behest of the industries in question, and are instead simply working toward shared, usually pro-corporate goals on their own.
Durbin's slip-up: Yesterday, Senator Durbin , the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, told a reporter that he was willing to water down the legislation so that it would only apply to sub-prime loans. While he might have been taken out of context, or simply been speaking in error, given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate it is likely that is what will happen to the legislation by the time it is delivered to President Obama's desk. Because of the current political climate, the goal of centrist Democrats and the banking industry is not actually to defeat the bill as they did in the past, but simply to narrow it and water it down. Depressingly, that effort is likely to succeed.
Obama administration to the rescue?: The best chance for keeping the legislation strong and applicable to as wide a range of homeowners as possible comes from the Obama administration itself. On Monday, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan will speak to House Democrats, and make a direct appeal for not narrowing or otherwise watering down the cram-down legislation. The administration does hold a lot of sway with congressional Democrats right now, and is riding high in the polls, so this appeal might just work. Let's hope so.
This bill is another test of the Obama administration's ability to sway center-right Democrats and Republicans. Unlike the stimulus, let's hope that no concessions are made without an actual promise of votes. Also, this vote should be a great test of whether or not members are voting with corporate interests, or with the interests of their constituents.
The House delayed voting until next week on a controversial housing bill that empowers bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages, said sources familiar with the plans.(...)
Some centrist Democrats and New Democrats were pushing this week to limit the impact of the legislation.
And why were they opposing it?
The financial-services industry has vigorously opposed "cramdown" legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down the principal and interest payments on mortgages for primary residences.
It is remarkable after all that has happened in the American economy to still hear the talking points of the banking industry and the securities industry repeated verbatim, without criticism, simply parroted.
The banking industry is really all about helping folks. That's what caused the problem. They were trying too hard to help people. They loaned perhaps not wisely, but too well.
Let's do a quick recap timeline here:
Financial Services industry destroys the economy
The Democratic leadership produces legislation (HR 1106) that will allow millions of Americans to stay in their homes--and to continue paying banks-as a result of the destroyed economy.
The financial services industry tells a bunch of New Democrats and Blue Dogs not to vote for said legislation.
These Blue Dogs and New Democrats oppose said legislation, repeating financial services industry talking points verbatim.
One of the key policies needed to solve the housing crisis will be mortgage "cram down" legislation. "Cram down," which is probably poorly named, will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments to match current home values, rather than the inflated values of the housing bubble era (read more on "cram down" here). This legislation, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in the House (HR 200), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Senate (S 61), will allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in their homes at this critical juncture in our economy. It is supported by President Obama, andincluded as a principle in the administration's housing plan (see page 4).
Tomorrow, the House will vote on Representative Conyer's bankruptcy cram down. The whip count is unclear right now, but some Blue Dogs and New Democrats, including Melissa Bean (D-IL), Dennis Moore (D-KS), and New Democratic chair Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), are working on behalf of the financial services industry to water down the legislation. Tauscher in particular is problematic, both because of her leadership role in one of the ideological caucuses, and also because rumors are that she has organized up to two dozen members thus far. It is about time that Tauscher, and the Representatives she is organizing, stop listening to industry lobbyists who do not have the public interest in mind.
So, let's make Representative Tauscher listen to someone else right now. Contact Ellen Tauscher, and urge her to stop organizing other Democrats to water down HR 200. She needs to listen to honewoners, not to the financial industry that got us into this economic disaster:
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
Not only is helping struggling homeowners the right thing to do, but if we don't turn the corner on the mortgage and economic crisis, then Democrats will find themselves in the same bad electoral position Republicans currently face.
Tauscher is key to this vote, and she can be influenced. After she was threatened by a primary challenge during much of 2007, her voting habits distinctly changed for the better. As such, if you are feeling cheeky enough, it might not hurt to mention that when you call.
Contact Representative Ellen Tauscher on HR 200!
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
With the stimulus legislation finally released to the public (read a summary of the bill here), and with Congress expected to pass the bill today or tomorrow, let's look at some of the goodies we are discovering about the bill today. In all of the areas where we had focused our attentions at Open Left--Buy America provisions, executive compensation, transportation funding and net neutrality--there was good news at the end of the process. Plus, the political situation improved in at least two ways, as well.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy insisted on Monday in firm and passionate terms that a comprehensive investigation be launched into the conduct of the Bush administration, saying anything less would prevent the country from moving forward.
Speaking at a forum at Georgetown University, the Vermont Democrat suggested the creation of a truth and reconciliation commission to uncover the "misdeeds" of the past eight years.
Over the past month, I have placed four calls and an email to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's press department asking if, based on the Senator's calls for such investigations, what he would actually do in make such investigations come to pass. None of my contacts have been returned. So, I think I will ditch contacting Senator Whitehouse on this matter at all, and just inquire directly with the Judiciary chair's staff, and / or his committee staff.
I have contacted about a dozen Senators or their offices over the past month. Only Kerry and Whitehouse have failed to get back to me. Not sure if this is because of a different attitude toward online media, toward my relevant inexperience in such contacts, toward responding to constituents vs. non-constituents, or some other factor entirely. Whatever it is, the lack of responsiveness from Senator Whitehouse's staff is kind of frustrating.
As the Senate opens debate on the stimulus package in about an hour, and with a vote on the package scheduled for Wednesday, it is time to start whip counting. In looking to determine the amount of Republican support for the stimulus package in the Senate, Josh Nelson at The Seminal did some excellent leg-work yesterday, tracking down quotes on the stimulus package from 37 of the 41 Republican Senators. Josh's work produced the following breakdown:
Senate Republicans on the Stimulus
Likely supporters (2): Susan Collins (Maine and Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Undecided: Mel Martinez (Florida)
No public statements (4): John Barrasso (Wyoming), Mike Johanns (Nebraska), Richard Lugar (Indiana), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
Opposed: All 34 others
60 Senators are required to break a threatened filibuster (not a real one, just a threatened one), which is a guarantee for this legislation (although Kagro X disagrees on this point). Currently, there are 99 Senators, due to the vacancy in Minnesota. With 58 Senators in the Democratic caucus, and public wavering from Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, we can use Josh's information to extrapolate the following whip count:
Overall Stimulus Whip Count
Likely Supporters (58): 56 Democrats plus Collins and Snowe
Undecided (5): Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Mel Martinez (R-Florida), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania).
Likely Opponents (35): All Republicans. Take the 34 Republicans with public statements opposing the stimulus, remove Judd Gregg, and add John Barrasso and Mike Johanns. There is simply to way that freshman Republicans from two of the last five remaining Republican states in the country will back President Obama over their party leadership.
In order to pass the stimulus package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama need to sway at least two of the six Senators in the undecided / special case categories.
It is possible that more Democrats will go the way of Kent Conrad Ben Nelson, and end up in the undecided camp. If you can find public statements of other wavering Democratic Senators, please post them in the comments.
Overall, it seems highly likely that the stimulus will pass without Republicans forcing major changes. However, given the narrow margins, this is not a guarantee.
One item that likely will be discussed is an amendment that would add billions of dollars to infrastructure projects. Nelson is crafting that measure with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, both on the Appropriations Committee.
Although Nelson's support for this amendment comes with a catch:
And Nelson doesn't want to stop there. He wants to pluck out what he says are extraneous projects in the stimulus bill to pay for the amendment. Providing hundreds of millions of dollars for prevention of smoking and sexually-transmitted disease -- though they may be worthy causes -- does not create jobs. Nelson even is willing to remove popular Pell Grant increases, saving them for annual spending bills later in the year.
Nelson's position on this makes no sense. He wants to spend money to prevent smoking, STDs, and to support Pell Grants, but he doesn't want those expenditures in this specific bill? My question is, if you are going to support both spending on X and spending on Y this year, why do you care about the name of the bills used to pass X an Y? That is just pointless labeling. If you are going to support them both, then it really doesn't matter which bills they are passed under. Unless, of course, you don't actually intend on supporting X or Y later on.
Anyway, I am thinking that we should push for the Murray-Feinstein-Nelson amendment for increased infrastructure spending, just as we did the Nadler rail amendment. Of course, we won't do it if it comes with the strings that Nelson wants to attach to it. What say you?
Bonus round: Obama, Dodd hammer Wall Street over $18.4B largesse
Following the report that Wall Street firms had handed out $18.4 billion in bonuses last year amid the financial meltdown, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) said he would look for "every possible legal means" to get the money returned.
"I'm going to be urging - in fact not urging, demanding - that the Treasury Department figures out some way to get the money back," Dodd said. "This is unacceptable."
However, here is what you didn't hear from either President Obama or Senator Dodd as they blasted the bonuses: legislation they are blocking makes it possible to retroactively strip those bonuses. Two weeks ago, the House passed legislation, Finance Chair Barney Frank's HR 384, which retroactively strips recipients of bailout money from receiving bonuses (more in the extended entry):
Oberstar (MN): Would amend the aviation, highway, rail, and transit priority consideration and "use-it-or-lose-it" provisions to require that 50 percent of the funds be obligated within 90 days. (10 minutes)
Markey (MA): Would require that the Secretary require, as a condition of receiving funding under Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, that the demonstration projects utilize Internet-based or other open protocols and standards if available and appropriate, and would require that grants recipients utilize Internet-based or other open protocols and standards. (10 minutes)
Shuster (PA): Would clarify that federal funds received by States under the bill for highway maintenance shall not be used to replace existing funds in place for transportation projects. (10 minutes)
Nadler (NY)/DeFazio (OR)/Ellison (MN)/McMahon (NY)/Lipinski (IL): Would increase transit capital funding by $3 billion. (10 minutes)
Neugebauer (TX): Would strike the appropriations provisions from the bill.(10 minutes)
Waters (CA): Would provide that job training funds may be used for broadband deployment and related activities provided in the bill. (10 minutes)
Flake (AZ): Would strike funding for Amtrak. (10 minutes)
Kissell (NC): Would expand the Berry Amendment Extension Act to include DHS to require the government to purchase uniforms for more than one hundred thousand uniformed employees from U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers. (10 minutes)
Platts (PA)/Van Hollen (MD): Would insert the text of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985 in the 110th Congress) regarding protections for federal employees who report waste, fraud, and abuse. (10 minutes)
Teague (NM): Would require that the Recovery.gov website contain links and other information on how to access job information created at or by entities receiving funding under the bill; including links to local employment agencies, state, local, and other public agencies receiving recovery funds, and private firms contracted to perform work funded by the bill. (10 minutes)
Camp (MI)/Cantor (VA): Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. Would strike everything after enacting clause and adds income tax rate deductions for bottom two income tax brackets, alternative minimum tax relief, small business deduction, bonus depreciation, small business expensing, expanded carryback of net operating losses, improved home buyer credit, unemployment benefit tax exemption, health insurance premium deduction, repeal of 3 percent withholding requirement for government contractors, extension of unemployment benefits, and a Sense of Congress against tax increases to offset outlays. (60 minutes)
"Our" campaign to increase rail funding is #4. It is also the only amendment that seems to increase the overall size of the bill by any significant measure. For now, I am willing to go along with the idea that, while the stimulus isn't as big as is probably needed, we can up infrastructure and social investment through the budget and the other twelve appropriation bills later in the year.
I will be blogging the voting during the day. You can watch the debate, and the amendment votes, online at C-SPAN.
Nadler's amendment is a go. Now everyone can play, because there will be a floor vote tomorrow.
Alright! Thanks to everyone who called!
Now we can move forward and start whipping on the Nadler amendment. Call the congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 in order to reach your member of Congress. Ask him or her to vote "Yes" on the Nadler amendment to H.R. 1 tomorrow.
Things are moving fast on the stimulus bill, but a short window has opened where we can make a difference on rail and mass transit funding in the stimulus. Here is the situation:
As reported by WI Dem in Quick Hits, several House members are submitting amendments to increase rail funding to the stimulus package:
The amendment would distribute $1.5 billion for the Transit Capital Assistance Program and $1.5 billion for Capital Assistance Grants, known as the New Starts Program.
The bill is introduced by Representative Nadler, and can be read here. There are other amendments introduced by Representatives C. Brown and Hare, that would increase rail funding by $3.9 billion and $500 million respectively. Any and all amendments to increase rail funding would be great.
This gives us two hours to make our voice heard for more rail funding in the stimulus bill. To do so, please contact the Rules Committee. Politely state your support for the Nadler, Brown and Hare amendments for increased rail funding. Ask the committee to approve these amendments for a floor vote tomorrow.
Their phone number is 202-225-9091.
This is a very short window, as the situation is fluid and happening fast. However, this also means we can make a difference. Please call now, and let the Rules Committee hear your support for the Nadler, Brown and Hare amendments to increase rail and mass transit funding.
Update: Lots of calls coming in. The committee is noticing! Commenter lord_mike writes after taking action:
Staffer said "We've been getting calls on that."
Commenter art3 writes:
called them and they have gotten many calls on this.
Also, if you live in a congressional district for a Democratic member of the Rules Committee, contact their office directly, and make the same ask listed above:
Chair Louise Slaughter, New York 28th
(202) 225-3615
Rep. Michael Arcuri, New York 24th
(202) 225-366
Rep. Chellie Pingree, Maine 1st
(202) 225-6116
Rep. James McGovern, Massachusetts 3rd
(202) 225-6101
Rep. Alcee Hastings, Florida 23rd
(202) 225-1313
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Colorado 7th
(202) 225-2645
Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado 2nd
(202) 225-2161
Rep. Doris Matsui, California 5th
(202) 225-7163
Rep. Dennis Cardoza, California 18th
(202) 225-6131
Less than an hour before the meeting starts. Make a quick call now!
"Cram-down" bankruptcy and mortgage reform being marked up in House Judiciary committee: Just yesterday came the final word that "cram-down" bankruptcy mortgage reform was not going to be in the stimulus package. However, the House is not wasting any time pushing it through as separate legislation, and it is already being marked up in the House Judiciary committee. No word on the chances of this legislation passing the Senate just yet, but the rapid turnaround in the fortunes of this legislation is welcome.
Broadband grants pass with Net Neutrality intact: There was a lot of worry in the media reform community that the new grants for broadband would happen only with a gutting of regulations on network neutrality. Fortunately, from what I have heard, this aspect of the stimulus appears to have passed through the committee markups in the House and Senate with the Net Neutrality regulations intact. There is still worry that the $6 billion for broadband in the stimulus will turn into corporate welfare, though. Tim Karr has more on this at the Huffington Post.
Timothy Geithner is confirmed as Treasury Secretary. By a vote of 60-34 in the Senate, Timothy Geithner has been confirmed as Treasury Secretary. Four members of the Democratic Senate caucus voted no: Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders. Feingold's no vote is surprising, as he rarely votes against Presidential appointees. Ten Republicans voted in favor of confirming Geithner. While I would have been fine with him being defeated, this is really a "meh."
John Conyers continues investigation of Bush administration. While discussion of investigation the Bush administration has often been couched in hypothetical terms, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers today showed that such investigations are currently ongoing. A few hours ago, Conyers subpoenaed Karl Rove, as part of an ongoing investigation of Karl Rove, former Attorney General Michael Mukaksey, former White House consul and Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and former White House Cheif of Staff Josh Bolton that was actually written into the judiciary rules package. So much for hypotheticals, or for looking forward rather than back. Let the investigations continue!
In advance of tomorrow's action to try and push the DeFazio amendment to increase high-speed rail funding in the stimulus package, I was wondering if anyone had a list of legislative directors for Democratic members of the House Rules committee. For that matter, a complete list of House legislative directors would be extremely useful. The reason for this is that, as I am coming to understand it, citizen lobbying is far more effective if it is aimed at legislative directors rather than simply leaving comments with the front desks of congressional offices. It is worth noting that the Rules committee also appears to contain many progressives, and should be fertile ground for our action.
Lots of action in Capitol Hill, and also in the White House. Isn't it great to actually be governing? :)
We received word this afternoon that Rep. DeFazio's amendment that would have provided $2 billion in assistance to transit agencies was required to be withdrawn. We'll post more as we learn it, but had something to do with parliamentary issues.
If you called Rep. Slaughter on the Rules Committee today, we thank you very much for your support and effort to get that crucial funding included in the economic recovery package. (And we point out that calls to her should no longer be made.)
Frak. I didn't act fast enough on this one. Still learning about how these things work.
Quite a few members of Congress are unhappy about this. Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon appears to be leading the charge to increase stimulus spending on rail, and had some harsh words for Larry Summers on the matter:
In response to the lack of stimulus spending on rail, DeFazio will introduce an amendment to the stimulus to up rail spending by $2 billion. While that is still short of the $15 billion minimum we had hoped for originally, it is at least something.
This amendment is going to go through the House Rules Committee in order to make it to the floor. With a vote on the stimulus expected on Wednesday, amendments need to be clear of committee by Tuesday.
I am thinking that this might be a good piece of activism for us to jump on tomorrow and Tuesday: call members of the House rules committee to help push the DeFazio amendment onto the floor. Of course, this is only one possible area of the stimulus to focus on, and other people might want to look at others. So, before we take this action, I would like to hear from you. Do you want to make calls asking for an up or down vote on DeFazio's amendment to increase rail spending in the stimulus?
Ten days ago, we reported on Open Left that bankruptcy "cram-down" mortgage relief would not appear in the stimulus, but would appear in a different piece of legislation later this year. Despite our reports, the fight over bankruptcy "cram-down" legislation in the stimulus did not actually end ten days ago. As recently as Thursday, House Democrats will still fighting in to include the measure in the stimulus, and Senator Dick Durbin, the leading proponent of the measure in the Senate, was denying that President Obama was opposed to including the measure in the stimulus.
However, any lingering doubt about the fate of bankruptcy "cram-down" reform in the stimulus can now be put to rest. Senator Durbin has confirmed that President Obama opposes including the measure in the stimulus, and favors including it in later legislation instead (more in the extended entry):
STATE BLOGS
