Scott Rigell Says He's Willing to See a Government Shutdown

After Joe Biden met with Senate Democrats yesterday, he told reporters that there had been a deal struck on the budget which would lead to about $33 billion in cuts. Although the Republicans had been fighting for $61 billion in cuts, this compromise would still result in the biggest single year budget cut and could therefore easily be spun as a win for the GOP. Instead of actively spinning this as a victory, however, the potential divide appears to have exposed a divide in the Republican Party.

In an attempt to appeal to the Tea Party wing of the GOP that helped so many freshmen members of Congress get elected, we're seeing several Republicans say they won't support the compromise. Despite the fact that some veteran members of the GOP appear to have been taking part in private negotiations, the freshmen have publicly displayed an attitude of "bring on the government shutdown." Instead of even trying to pretend as though he's worried about a shutdown, Virginia's own Scott Rigell even told the Washington Post that he basically places the extreme policies of the Tea Party over keeping the government running.

Rep. E. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), another freshman, said he would not comment on a specific compromise until it was struck. But, he said, he was willing to allow a government shutdown if cuts were not aggressive enough.

“If the objective of keeping the government open is such a high priority that one is willing to accept potentially continual increases in the federal debt [through large amounts of deficit spending], I’m not in that camp,” Rigell said.

On Capitol Hill in recent weeks, staffers have been trying to paint a picture that portrays the opposing party as the one that should be held responsible for a potential government shutdown. That is why John Boehner has been telling the press that Republicans only "control one-half of one-third of the government here” and Eric Cantor displayed his ignorance of the legislative process when trying to place blame on the Democrats. The outright refusal of Rigell and his fellow freshmen Republicans to come to the negotiating table, however, help to make it clear that the GOP should bear the responsibility if we do have a government shutdown.

Gerry Connolly Says There's A Difference Between Unfunded Mandates and Private Sector Regulations

As the negotiations surrounding the federal budget has been receiving a significant amount of attention in recent months, many members of Congress are concerned about potential “unfunded mandates” being placed on local and state governments. One of those members is Gerry Connolly, who spent many years as a member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Gerry has spoken out about unfunded mandates on several occasions and I distinctly remember him using NCLB as an example of how the federal government sometimes issues requirements for localities but not also providing the funding for localities to meet those federal mandates. As localities are struggling to balance their budget in tough economic times this is simply unacceptable. That is why Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (aka UMRA).

The discussion about unfunded mandates has becoming increasingly prevalent on the Hill recently and isn’t just limited to those who have served in local government. A subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, for instance, held hearing a couple months ago on UMRA for the first time in over five years. This hearing was somewhat uneventful as most of the witnesses and committee members appeared to agree that there should be an effort to ensure that there aren’t very many unfunded mandates placed on local government. There was a second hearing on the topic yesterday, however, that created a bit of a stir as the Republicans on the committee clearly were clearly using it to argue against regulation of the business community.

Since many economists have said deregulation of the banking and business community is what largely caused the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression (which we’re still trying to recover from), it might be hard to believe that Congressional leadership would even consider arguing against regulating the business community. That is why Rep. Gerry Connolly used his opening statement to really go after the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. While highlighting how he supports “efforts to curtail unfunded state and local government mandates,” he pointed out that unfunded mandates are a separate matter than regulating the private sector. That is why he was frustrated that the GOP decided to ignore the spirit of UMRA by trying to use the legislation “as a subterfuge to block or delay thoughtful regulation on the private sector.” On top of that, Gerry added that the GOP’s tactics “would not only harm the public we serve but also waste time that could be used to develop better technology and procurement policy.”

Throughout the debate surrounding health care reform, we frequently heard the Tea Party and its supporters claim that the legislation would do enormous harm to small businesses. That argument was also used at yesterday’s hearing as a justification of what UMRA needed to be used in order to prevent regulation of the private sector in general. As the ranking Democrat on the committee, Gerry Connolly once again stepped up to question this line of propaganda put out by the GOP. For instance, Gerry highlighted how we have heard similar arguments from the GOP and business community before in the run up to when Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1990. History has shown those arguments to be false in the 20 years since that legislation was implemented.

In regards to health care reform, Gerry was quick to point out how the Tea Party and its allies are grossly exaggerating the burden on small business. Only about 4% have over 50 employee threshold that would require businesses to provide health care, for example, which means that 96% of small businesses would therefore be exempt from the so called “onerous regulation” of providing health care. On top of that, over 96% of those 4% already offer coverage and therefore would be exempt of the “onerous regulation.” What these statistics mean is that many members the GOP and the business community are exaggerating the impact of legislation on a incredibly small number of people in an attempt to score some political points. And those types of political games are exactly what Gerry Connolly and other Democrats believe shouldn’t be a part of the discussion surrounding legislation that could greatly benefit the American people.

ADA Released Congressional Scorecard for 2010

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is a grassroots organization that has been heavily involved with progress causes since its founding in the 1940’s. In addition to is grassroots action, the scorecard ADA releases every year based on crucial votes in Congress has also become something that’s really examined by leaders on both sides of the aisle to see were certain legislators fall. Especially when you consider that many people who were in Virginia’s Congressional delegation in 2010, I was especially anxious to see the scores and analysis that were just released.

Considering how the Tea Party has gained a significant amount of power in the Republican, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the average score of Republicans in the House were even lower this year than in 2009. Virginia’s Republicans had extremely low scores, but were only slightly below the national average for Republicans in the House – 5%. This is because while Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte scored a zero, Randy Forbes and Rob Wittman scored a 5%, and Frank Wolf scored a 10%.

As far as Virginia’s Democratic House delegation in 2010, the overall average was 77%. Among those who are left in 2011, the average was a 95%. Here’s how the individual members scored:

Rick Boucher 55%
Gerry Connolly 85%
Jim Moran 100%
Glenn Nye 45%
Tom Perriello 75%
Bobby Scott 100%

On the Senate side of things, Webb scored 85% and Warner scored an 80%.

It’s worth noting here that the three who scored the lowest (Nye, Boucher, and Perriello) are the ones who lost their seats during the 2010 elections. While Perriello actually scored 5 points better than he did during 2009, both Boucher and Nye scored significantly worse. What this shows is that even when Republicans are making grounds, it doesn’t make electoral sense for Democrats to bail on their values just because it’s a tough political situation. In fact, you could argue that it’s actually the Democrats that stand their ground who are rewarded by the voters.

With that in mind, these scores could also give us a glimpse into some of the people who could potentially run for Webb’s seat in 2012. In a sign that many of his votes might have been to appease the Tea Party activists who were working heavily against him, Perriello received a low score primarily because he voted in favor of big business instead of regulations that would benefit the working class. He voted against legislation that would better regulate Wall Street (HR 4173), one that would remove the $75 million liability cap on marine oil spills (HR 3534), and one that would allow the FDA to directly recall tainted products, rather than rely on manufacturers’ voluntary cooperation (HR 2751). These votes will not sit well with the volunteers who knock on doors for Democratic candidates and will be hard to explain to potential donors.

Bobby Scott, who has also been gaining momentum as a potential candidate, on the other hand, proved to have a very progressive voting record. Although he represents a district that is designed to elect a Democrat, it’s also worth noting that he received over 70% of the vote in a year where Republicans made sweeping gains. His total was even about 10 points higher than Jim Moran, who represents a district that many consider the most progressive in Virginia. What this means is that he has a voting record that could inspire the Democratic base and knows how to run a good campaign.

UPDATE: To give you a glimpse of the national glimpse, here’s a “snapshot” that ADA put out along with the report.

Obama's "speech was necessary, realistic and unsatisfactory."

Almost immediately after Obama's speech last night on Libya, Chuck Todd put out a tweet that said "Here's a premise to discuss: POTUS speech was necessary, realistic and unsatisfactory." With all the violence it Libya, it was quickly becoming apparent that some sort of action was needed. Nonetheless, it still unclear what our actual goals are there and the exact role that the US will be playing now that NATO is taking over. That is why I was hoping that the president would be able to provide a clearer picture of what our action will look like in the future.

While Obama rightfully provided the American people a reminder of why we needed to take action in Libya, he should have done a much better job of providing a glimpse into how we move forward. That is why I agree with Chuck's premise that the "speech was necessary, realistic, and unsatisfactory." It appears as though some members of the Democratic leadership in Congress also had some mixed reactions to the speech. Rep. Steny Hoyer said that he supports "this lifesaving effort" and highlighted how the action has a lot of international support -- something that separates these efforts from the War in Iraq. Despite this praise of taking action, Hoyer also reminded the president that "it is essential that the president continue to inform and consult with Congress as long as American troops remain part of this mission."

What this all means is that the Administration still needs to do a better job of giving the American people a better idea of the road ahead. A prime example of what's a little unclear is how the country now fits into the leadership of the mission now that NATO is taking the lead on enforcing the flyover and how do we define a successful mission. And that is why Members of Congress like Steny Hoyer spoke out about the Administration's responsibility to continue updating Congress and the public.

Rep. Steny Hoyer on Anniversary of Health Care Reform

It's now been a year since health care reform was passed and the anniversary has caused a lot of renewed discussion about the legislation. I'll have some more coverage of the response from some leaders in Virginia later in the week, but I did want to take a moment to highlight a statement that Rep. Steny Hoyer made earlier today.

“A year ago this week, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, giving families—not insurance companies—the freedom to control their own health care choices. Just a year after it became law, the Affordable Care Act is making it easier for small businesses to cover their employees, reforms in the law are taking important steps to slow the growth of health care costs, and the law is stopping the worst insurance company abuses, including making it illegal to deny care to children because of a pre-existing condition.

“Thanks to this law, young people under the age of 26 are already able to stay on their parents’ insurance plans. The law is also helping nearly 4 million seniors across the nation—including 54,723 Maryland seniors— cover the cost of prescription drugs. Seniors in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, known as the "donut hole," now receive an 50% discount on brand name drugs - and thanks to the Affordable Care Act, those discounts will increase until the donut hole is eliminated completely.

"One year later, we have given American families new patient protections and greater freedoms. But if Republicans had their way, they would repeal the law and take away these newfound freedoms. We cannot roll back that progress. And we cannot go back to the days when insurance companies were in charge.”

House Holds Hearing on For Profit College Regulations

Arnold Mitchem listening to opening statements

Throughout my time as an organizer, one of the issues that I focused on was ensuring that low-income students have access to a high quality education. That is why I like how some for-profit colleges are able to work with both local employers and students to provide people with the skills they need to enter the 21st Century job market. The problem is that despite some positive aspects of for-profit schools, many of these schools only graduate an extremely small number of students. This means that many low income students are left with a mountain of debt and no degree to help earn them a well paying job. As a result, the Higher Education Act says that for-profit colleges must have programs that “prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation” in order to participate in federal student aid programs.

While these programs aren’t public institutions, Rep. George Miller pointed out that “in some cases, these in 90 percent of their revenue from federal student loans.” This is also especially important when you consider some of the other facts that Miller pointed out. Students graduate at a much lower rate from for-profit schools, for instance, and they account for a disproportionate number of students receiving pell grants and defaulting on their federal loans.

In fact, only 22 percent of students graduated from for-profit colleges, compared with 65 percent at private colleges or 55 percent at public universities.

A recent report from Ed Trust showed that 24 percent of all Pell Grant recipients are at for-profit colleges even though they only represent 12 percent of total college enrollment. This number has nearly doubled from 10 years ago. The report also shows that for-profit colleges account for 43 percent of all federal student loan defaults.

Since these numbers have been rapidly growing in recent years, the Obama Administration wants to define what “gainful employment” means. The Senate has already been looking at how to properly regulate the for-profit college industry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce joined in the process on Thursday. While the specific purpose of the hearing was to look at the “gainful employment” regulation, the hearing did take a broad look at the industry at large.

One of the people who testified at the hearing was Arnold Mitchem, who is the president of the Council for Opportunity in Education. His testimony is important because many of the students who attend for-profit colleges are low-income students who are oftentimes the first in their families to go to college. While it’s good that these students are attempting to obtain a higher education, Rep. Miller had already pointed out that a large portion don’t graduate and are left with a large amount of debt. Mitchem pointed out that the problems don’t stop there. Students who start at for-profit colleges often have trouble transferring credits, which can often hinder their aspirations to receive a high quality education. To help illustrate this point, Mitchem highlighted the story of a Iraq war veteran.

This individual completed 54 of a 60 credit associate’s degree program at a for-profit “college” before being deployed to Iraq. When he returned home and attempted to enroll in a university, he found that none of these credits were transferable, though he had been assured that they would be. Often TRIO-eligible students begin their postsecondary careers at for-profit institutions, assuming that it is a building block in their long-term educational plans. But, too often, their enrollment at these institutions hinders those plans.

This story is important because it not only illustrates how for-profit colleges can hinder a student’s ability to receive a degree, but also highlights how many of these schools use deceptive tactics when trying to recruit students. This is especially the case with these low income students who aren’t familiar with the college system and wouldn’t even know they should be concerned about whether credits are transferable. What makes the situation worse is that frequently these for-profit colleges use advanced marketing techniques that are specifically designed to target these students. Furthermore, many students don’t realize that their first interactions with a for-profit college aren’t necessarily with a college counselor, but with a sales representative. This means that people who don’t know a whole lot of the college system are interacting with people who are more focused on a sales quota rather than what’s in the best interest of the student. The student therefore might not realize that attending a for-profit college isn’t his or her best option.

Mitchem addressed the misinformation that is out there during his testimony. Many proponents of for-profit colleges claim that they are the best institutions for providing access for low income and minority students. The Republicans even had one person testify about how she relied on for-profit colleges to advance her education. While there are success stories like the one of Catherine Barreto, Mitchem pointed out that experts in higher education have said “it’s rare that they found for-profit programs to be the best fit for the students they counseled” because there are public programs available that wouldn’t require students to have such a high amount of debt. There are also many public schools that actively looking for ways to provide access for low income students, but many “students are simply unaware of the entire range of educational opportunities available to them.” When there are sales representatives trying to hit their sales targets by providing glossy marketing material to unexpecting students, it therefore shouldn’t be surprising that many students decide on for-profit colleges before knowing about all their options.

With all these concerns about for-profit colleges, action needs to be taken in order to ensure that students truly are receiving the best education possible. As Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) pointed out, this isn’t about limiting access to for-profit colleges but is about making sure that students have all the information they need to make a good decision about their education. Although the for-profit college industry has come out in opposition to the administration’s decision to define what “gainful employment” means, the hearings that have taken place on the Hill has made it clear that something needs to be done in order to protect students. With so much federal money going towards helping students attend for-profit colleges, anyone concerned about the budget should want some better regulations of the industry in place to help ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely.

House Holds Hearing on Future of Gitmo Detainees

There has been a lot of debate over the use of Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold suspected terrorists because Obama promised during the 2008 campaign that he would close down the detention center. Once he was sworn into office, one of the first things he did was order a review to see how it could be shut down without endangering the public. Although the administration claims it’s still committed to closing Guantanamo Bay, it’s been over two years and there hasn’t been significant amount of progress towards that goal. In a hearing before the Armed Services Committee on Thursday, however, William Lynn (the Deputy Secretary of Defense) testified about some of the action that the Obama Administration is proposing while moving forward.

One of the first things that Lynn highlighted was that the Obama Administration has lifted the ban on military commissions for those being held. The commissions had been suspended when Obama took over the presidency so that the administration could have some time to evaluate the program and see how it wanted to move forward. To give a glimpse into the thinking of Obama and Defense officials on this move, Lynn testified that the Miliary Commissions Act of 2009 “incorporated a number of reforms, including a ban on the use of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment… and an enhanced system for the handling of classified information.”

Despite these reforms and the decision to lift the ban on military commissions, Lynn made it clear that the Administration “disagrees with the restrictions that the Congress has imposed on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting them in federal court.” He highlighted how Secretary Gates had previously pointed out that the federal court system has already proven to be an effective way of bringing terrorists to justice. In addition bringing terrorists to justice, trying some of the detainees in federal court is a way of showing that the American system is one that can be fair and balanced while still holding those who attack the US accountable.

While there appears to be a lot of desire among the administration to move forward on prosecutions, there also seems to be the realization that some of the detainees will never leave captivity even if they don’t receive a trial. Rep. Adam Smith even joked that Gitmo “is like Hotel California. You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.” With this in mind, Obama singed Executive Order 13567, which provides for periodic reviews of the detainees who are likely to be held for an extremely long time. This process is in place to ensure that over time, all of the detentions are “carefully evaluated and justified.” While the review process won’t satisfy all civil liberties activists, it is a step in the direction of figuring out how to deal with the most dangerous people being held.

As there are growing calls for progress on bringing the detainees to justice in a respectable fashion, some of the Republican leaders are speaking out against the Administration’s position. Rep. Buck McKeon, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for instance, used his opening statement on Thursday to express concern “that by involving layers in the administrative review process, what is supposed to be an administrative evaluation of the threat posed by a detainee, will turn into yet another opportunity for layers to embroil our military in endless litigation.” This statement not only shows distain for any effort to ensure that the military isn’t unnecessarily holding detainees, but fits in with the GOP’s constant attacks on lawyers. During the debate surrounding health care reform, for instance, Republicans would frequently claim that it was lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. In both situations, that tactic has caused a lot of people to believe the Republicans are simply trying to distract from the real issues at hand and blame a group of people (trial lawyers) who have a history of supporting Democrats.

What all of this means is that there appears to be some movement towards having trails for the detainees move forward, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done in order to figure out the details of how everything will move forward. While I’d like to be optimistic about progress being made, we’ve seen so many broken promises from both sides of the aisle on this issue that I’m not confident we’ll see some positive action in the near future.

Budget Debate for Office of Indian Affairs Represents Responsible Process

As we’re hearing all of the discussions about the budget, there have been a lot of discussions about how the cuts proposed by the House Republicans will have a negative impact on our economy. Instead of trying to simply focus on spending reduction by cutting $1.1 billion from Head Start or defunding NPR, the Obama Administration has proposed moving forward with a program that could spur our economy by investing in crucial programs that could spur job creation at the same time it saves money by cutting inefficiencies and reducing funding to programs that aren’t as crucial to the American people. A prime example of these tactics can be found in the Administration’s proposal for Indian Country.

The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk, recently testified before Congress about his department’s budget request. While speaking before the newly created Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, Echo Hawk spoke about how his three priority initiatives: Strengthening Tribal Nations, New Energy frontier, and Cooperative Landscape Conservation.

One of the major aspects of strengthening tribal nations is investing in Indian Education. One of the primary reasons for doing this is because there is incredibly high unemployment on Indian reservations and many of people living on reservations haven’t received a high school diploma. Investing in providing a quality education for Indian Country could therefore greatly improve the lives of thousands of people living on reservations. As a result, the office of Indian Affairs is asking for an increase in funding for education so that Native Americans can have the skills necessary to enter the 21st Century job market. In the long run, these investments will save the country money by creating a highly skilled workforce that will result in less people to be dependent on social services from the federal government.

One of the important aspects in improving the Bureau of Indian Education is investing in the actual school buildings that are used by students. When you consider that conditions haven’t improved too much since almost 75% of schools in Indian Country where listed as in poor condition back in 2001, it shouldn’t be too surprising that many committee members were concerned about the state of Indian schools. Based upon what we heard from the witnesses, they recognize this concern and are doing what they can to invest in improving schools. While they reduced the overall budget request, for example, one area they targeted for increased investment was in their requests for Operations and Management. This funding will help to ensure that the schools at least stay in the same condition (instead of getting worse) during these tough economic times.

While the Office of Indian Affairs is increasing funding in education, Echo Hawk also testified that he realizes we’re in touch economic times and his office has therefore proposed cutting funding from several programs. They are cutting “$41.5 million for a detention center new facility construction due to a similar program within the Department of Justice and a reduction of $22.1 for administration cost savings and management efficiencies.” These are just some of the savings that will help to reduce the budget request for the department by 4.5% when compared to the FY 2010 levels.

In addition to the amount of money that’s being requested by the department, there was a fair amount of discussion about how the funding is implemented. During the hearing, for example, Rep. Bosar said that he’s hearing from some people at the local level that they would actually prefer block grants instead of the BIA running programs at the federal level. In response to this Secretary Echo Hawk pointed out that about half of all BIA programs are operated at the tribal level. That percentage increases to about 2/3 when you’re talking about programs run through the Bureau of Indian Education. Furthermore, the number of federal employees at the BIA has gone from over 18,000 in 1973 to just over 8,000 now. In other words, Echo Hawk is already working extremely hard to make sure that tribal leadership has their voice heard in the process and that the best possible solutions for everyone involved are utilized.

Of all of the hearings I’ve been to on the budget, this was one of the few where I walked away feeling as though everyone involved is relatively satisfied with the administration’s proposal. While there are always going to be some disagreements, the committee members appear to be truly committed to investing in Indian Country and coming together in a bipartisan manner to produce results. When I spoke to Secretary Echo Hawk after the hearing, it appears as though he shared those sentiments. One of the things he told me, for instance, is that he sees this new subcommittee as an additional legislative body that can help draw attention to the concerns of the Native communities. Furthermore, he highlighted how many of the members had already been working with various tribes and how the ranking member even had 17 federally recognized tribes in his Oklahoma district. In other words, this won’t just be another bureaucratic step in the law making process but will be a subcommittee that can truly advocate for Indian Country.

House Passes Bill to Defund NPR

When I was organizing in Rochester, I was always surprised at the limited amount of news media that was available to the public. Despite the fact that Rochester is part of the “Big Five” (the five biggest cities in the state of New York), the main newspaper was tiny and it was common to have almost 3/4 of the paper filled with ads. While there were a few alternative weekly papers that provided some high quality reporting, most of the people I know there depended on public radio to get their news. Since the City is in the middle of a mayoral campaign and a crucial debate about how the school system will be run, reporters from the public radio station some of the only people who are actually broadcasting information that the public desperately needs.

Now with public radio playing such a crucial role in providing the public with information in a mid-sized city like Rochester, imagine how valuable public radio is in small towns and rural areas. While these areas might not be able financially support even a small newspaper, the people who live there still deserve to have access to the news. Furthermore, it’s important for someone to hold the local leaders accountable and make sure that the public is informed about what’s going on in their community. And that’s where public radio comes into play. If the Republicans in the House of Representatives have their way, however, public radio and those who depend on it for information will suffer.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a bill largely on party lines that would prevent public funds from receiving federal funding. The bill (HR 1076), which was introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorodo), didn’t receive any support from Democrats and even had seven Republicans vote against it. I therefore shouldn’t be too surprising that it isn’t likely to pass in the Senate and the White House has already expressed opposition. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that it represents how the Republicans are willing to cut programs that create jobs for thousands of Americans and provide valuable public services. In a time when these jobs and services are desperately needed, the GOP is hoping to cut these programs so they can win a few political points no matter what they will actual cause the public to lose.

Opposition to Stop Gap Measures Increases on the Hill

Although there isn’t necessarily much movement towards a compromise on a long term continuing resolution, there’s definitely a growing opposition to repeated stop gap spending measures. This includes an increased number of Republicans who voted against the resolution. In the Senate yesterday, for instance, 9 of the 13 Senators voting against the measure were Republicans (up from 5 who voted against the previous stop-gap measure). In the House, where the GOP has a sizable majority, there were 54 Republicans who revolted against their party’s leadership and voted against the measure.

While these numbers aren’t huge, there is a lot of buzz on the Hill about how this illustrates frustration with using short term spending bills. The problem that I’m seeing, however, is the plan and simple fact that everyone wants to avoid repeated stop gap measures but nobody appears to be incredibly optimistic about a potential compromise. Based upon what I’m hearing, this is largely because the GOP leadership isn’t willing compromise on the extreme cuts that were proposed in HR 1. Fortunately, Steny Hoyer and other members of the Democratic leadership has had enough and is beginning to call the Republicans out on their extreme positions.

“Over the course of the next three weeks, Democrats and Republicans must work together to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. Democrats have shown that we are willing to cut spending as long as it does not hurt our economy or cost jobs. I hope Republicans show a similar willingness to compromise and work with us,” Hoyer said in a statement he released yesterday after the Senate passed the stop gap measure. “They cannot insist on extreme social policy riders that have no place in a debate on spending cuts, and they must come down from their reckless and economically damaging demand for $100 billion in spending cuts. After this week’s vote in the House, it is clear that if Republicans do not insist on inflammatory riders and make targeted and smart spending cuts, we will be able to reach a compromise.”

In other words, proposing a budget that would kick 218,000 kids out of Head Start, cause 284,000 people to lose their jobs helping in the transportation and infrastructure field, and do away with a program that helps homeless veterans is simply irresponsible and could have a devastating impact on our economy. When you combine that with how we have frequently heard about how continuously relying on stop gap measures can have a devastating impact on things like our military, it’s safe to say that something has to change.

The timing of the growing opposition to repeated stop gap measures also comes at an interesting time because members of the House are heading back to their districts for a week. Since this time will be used to meet with their constituents, it could present an opportunity for the American people to voice their opposition to the extreme cuts in the GOP proposal. If enough members of the GOP who are growing frustrated with the budget process listen to these demands for action, then we might see a legitimate revolt against their party’s leadership. I therefore wouldn’t be surprised if this district work week ended with members of both parties ready to come back and move forward with true negotiations.

Sen. Warner's Opening Statement at Senate Budget Hearing

Sen. Mark Warner is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee's Task Force on Government Performance. The following is the video of his opening remarks at today's hearing. While you're watching, it's worth noting that Warner is one of the members of the so called "Gang of 6" that's supposedly sitting down together to come up with a bipartisan agreement for the budget debate currently taking place in Congress.

Hoyer Goes After Cantor's Partisanship During Speech on House Floor

There's always going to be some differences between the parties, but it's really time for our leaders to come together in order to reach an agreement on a long term continuing resolution. As we're rapidly approaching yet another deadline when we might see a government shutdown, however, there is a lot of concern about how we might see multiple two week CRs or a shutdown. As I've pointed out before, this is simply dangerous policy that experts have been expressing concern about during this testimony before various Congressional committees.

With that in mind, Steny Hoyer took to the floor of the House of Representatives that talked about how we need to have a bipartisan negotiation in order to avoid desaster. During his speech, he went after Eric Cantor while highlighting how even Republicans disagree with the extreme measures that the GOP leadership is promoting. Here's the video of the remarks and I've posted a transcript of some of the highlights below the video.



"Now, we're looking for a counteroffer because we don't agree with some of H.R. 1, as you well know. As a matter of fact, every conservative Democrat, every liberal Democrat and everybody in between voted no on H.R. 1, as did three of your Republicans over there and Susan Collins, who voted for it, said she didn't like the elements in it. So what I am saying to my friend, very sincerely, is he can preach all he wants that we need to cut spending. We agree with that. And the issue is where do you cut it from? What impact does it have? Does it sustain the economy or does it deflate the economy? Does it create jobs or does it lose jobs? Does it help people who need help or does it abandon people who need help? That's the issue.”

“And what I’m saying to my friend, with all due respect, is we have made an offer. The gentleman wants to talk about the President. Article 1 of the Constitution says we need to do this. This is our responsibility. The people elected us to do it, and the people elected us to reach agreement. And how do you reach agreement? This is what I want. This is what you want. But if what you said we have come up, we have moved pretty substantially. We think it was appropriate to move. Now we are asking you, are you prepared to move from the position you have taken consistently at your figure, which a lot of your folks thinks has problem in some parts? I am asking and you are apparently not going to make a counteroffer as to, we took $100 billion—couldn't pass it, couldn't pass the Senate. What I mean by you, the Senate didn't pass it. The gentleman is absolutely correct. But we Democrats have made the offer here and there of the $51 billion. The President's indicated he could sign that. He said that publicly. Now, that's our offer sitting on the table. My suspicion is you've rejected that offer.”

"I would hope that the gentleman would see fit to determine where we can meet somewhere in the middle. We think we have got 51 percent of the way towards your 100. You keep talking about 60. That was not your pledge. Your pledge was 100. The way you got to 100 is count to 41. We have done that. We have done another 10. So we have come, we think, 51 percent of the way. You don't count it that way. We understand that. But whatever way we come, we need to move on. You won the majority, God bless you. I'm sorry about that, but I live with it and there it is. You have the majority. And with the majority you have the responsibility to see if we can move this country forward. That's what Newt Gingrich said, it can't be the perfectionist caucus, as he referred to, of sticking just at a number that doesn't have the votes in the United States Senate. If we are going to be on this two-week cycle, I will tell my friend you may keep passing this two weeks at a time, none of us want to shut down government, but I will tell you while I and my colleagues, some of my colleagues may vote to do this one more time, for me it's the last time. We need to have a plan to fund this government for the balance of the fiscal year to September 30. It is irresponsible for us not to have that. And each of us sticking to our number and just pointing fingers at one another, saying the Senate can't get 60 votes for anything we propose, will not serve our country or our people.”

President Speaks in Virginia About Fixing NCLB

When he testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan pointed out that "we have to make sure that every single scarce taxpayer dollar is having an impact on students." I think this is an incredibly important concept because we must make sure that our education programs truly do serve our students. That is why we need to reform programs like NCLB, a program that focuses too much on testing our way to results instead of truly preparing students for college and the 21st century job market.

This is why President Obama's speech this morning at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington this morning was right on target.



UPDATE: I think it's worth noting that this is the second time in just a couple weeks that President has spoken at a school in Northern Virginia. Furthermore, his speech appears to be generally well received by some Republicans even though they are looking at a big battle over education funding -- especially in regards to funding programs like Head Start. Rep. John Kline, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, released the following statement.

“The president's remarks affirm the importance of fixing the nation’s broken education system. As we develop targeted, fiscally responsible reforms, the Committee on Education and the Workforce continues to work with school officials and state and local leaders to learn about the tools they need to prepare students for the future. We need to take the time to get this right – we cannot allow an arbitrary timeline to undermine quality reforms that encourage innovation, flexibility, and parental involvement.”

GOP Kills Connolly Military Mortgage Relief Amendment

As discussions about budgetary issues continue, one of the major complaints the American people have about the GOP’s spending plan is that they simply don’t understand the value of the programs being cut. Rep. Steny Hoyer even used a morning hour speech yesterday to highlight how the GOP’s cuts could have a devastating impact on the economy. Today we’re seeing a prime example of how the GOP is cutting valuable programs today when an amendment proposed by Congressman Gerry Connolly to continue providing emergency mortgage assistance to service members, veterans, and gold star families failed on a party line vote today.

The vote on Connolly’s amendment came as the House of Representatives passed legislation to strip assistance to homeowners in distress. During a time when we’re still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, you’d think our Congress would want to do what it could to support struggling working class families. Considering that this crisis also came at a time when we’re fighting two wars, Connolly highlighted how military families have been hit harder than many other areas. In military towns, the foreclosure rate is four times higher than the national average and the rate of foreclosure in towns within ten miles of a military facility rose by 217 percent from 2007 to 2009, compared with just 59 percent nationwide. A local example of this for folks in Northern Virginia can be seen in Woodbridge, Virginia near Marine Corps Base Quantico where the foreclosure rate increased 414 percent.

That is why Connolly offered the amendment to H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, which would continue the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for members of the Armed Forces, Veterans, and Gold Star Families. While it was clear that the Republicans would pass the entire bill, even though the program would help homeowners who were struggling through no fault of their own, Connolly’s amendment would have allowed the program to continue for military families. The GOP obviously didn’t agree this was a good idea as the amendment was killed on the House floor by a largely party line vote of 182-238.

In addition to pointing out that “the unemployment rate for the heroes who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan is fifteen percent higher than the national average,” Connolly also mentioned how this “underscores the hardships these veterans face when they return home.” In response to the GOP’s decision not to support the amendment, he also mentioned how “Once again, the Republican Majority has shown that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. All of us in Congress have a sacred obligation to fight for those who fight for us. I’m saddened by the fact that, today, this body was unwilling to fight.”

Steny Hoyer Discusses "The Real Budget Story"

As the discussion surrounding the budget has been increasing in recent weeks, the Republicans have been claiming that there need to be drastic cuts in order to reduce the deficit. What they seem to ignore is the plain and simple fact that economists all suggest that the cuts they are proposing could have a devastating impact on the economy. That is why Democrats like Steny Hoyer have taken to the floor of the House of Representatives to discuss "the real budget story."

During the morning hour speeches yesterday, Hoyer spoke about the current budget debate and how part of the reason the GOP's cuts are so harmful is that they are placing certain portions of the budgets off limits for cuts. Hoyer says that this is the wrong approach and we must look at the entire budget, not just discretionary spending, to solve our budget challenge.

Testimony Suggests Regulation of Business is Good for Profits and Innovation

During a subcommittee hearing on about protecting intellectual property on Wednesday, there was a lot of discussion about how the patent process is an important aspect of encouraging people to invest in innovation. While there were witnesses from the medical research industry and another who serves as the chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at UNC, the Committee devoted a significant amount of attention to the Chief Technology Officer for Rosetta Stone, Michael Fulkerson. He was there to talk about how the software industry is facing some difficult times protecting their intellectual property because there are a lot of people who download their software for free from pirating websites.

When he was asked what Congress could do to help address the problem of online pirating, Fulkerson said that it’s too easy for the public to find pirated goods. In his opinion, Congress should therefore work with experts to make it harder to gain access to the illegal programs. As a way to describe the situation, Fulkerson said that if a pawn shop was selling pirated goods, the cops would simply go in and shut the place down. With an internet site that allows people to download pirated goods, however, it’s a lot harder to shut down the website. This is further complicated by the fact that many of the sites are operating through servers based overseas.

I was discussing this situation with a friend of mine who has been using Rosetta Stone to learn Italian and she said, “if it didn’t cost more than some used cars, maybe more people would pay for it.” I completely understand where that sentiment is coming from and I imagine a lot of people share her opinion. They would probably be able to reach a broader market if their product didn’t cost so much. Nonetheless, Rosetta Stone’s a company that’s extremely successful and produces a product that people really want to use. The fact that people are constantly searching for ways to illegally download it simply goes to show that the demand for Rosetta Stone is there.

The availability of pirated versions of Rosetta Stone software, however, has the potential to reduce the demand for their products. Fulkerson pointed out that while many of the programs available online are almost exact copies of the software that Rosetta Stone actually sells, there are sometimes glitches that cause the programs to run improperly. As word spreads among various social groups about this glitches, he argues, there is the potential for serious damage to their brand. In other words, they’re not just worried about the money they lose due to illegal downloads; they’re worried the downloaded copies will also have a negative impact on those who were considering paying for language learning software.

The testimony of Fulkerson and the other witnesses all seemed to be coming down to one point: Who would invest in a program or product if other people could simply copy the final product after the most expensive part of the process had already been done? They were therefore calling upon Congress to help ensure that patents are actually protected. This is interesting because businesses, which are usually anti-regulation, are actually coming out and saying that they want the government to do something that would regulate business. In order to explain why they thought regulation was good in this instance, they said that by protecting intellectual property, the government would actually be creating an atmosphere that spurs innovation. Fulkerson, for instance, highlighted how Rosetta Stone recently created a program that allows customers to enhance their speaking skills by talking with native speakers of various languages.

While discussing this latest development in Rosetta Stone, Fulkerson pointed out that they were only able to move forward with these new programs due to the profits they were making previously. This is important to note because all of the witnesses talked about how enforcing patent regulations is crucial to encouraging investment and allowing innovation to be an avenue worth pursuing financially. In other words, a logical conclusion from their testimony would be that regulation of the business world is something that not only helps profits but also spurs innovation.

Mark Warner Receives Praise for his Leadership on Budget Issues

In a clear sign of how we need to simply have a budget that both reduces the deficit and doesn't drastically cut crucial programs, the Senate rejected HR 1 (the GOP's continuing resolution proposal) and the one put forward by the Democratic leadership. The way things are going, however, I get the sense from conversations I've had with staffers that it's almost like a game of chicken. Nobody wants to see a government shutdown, but if it does happen, they want to make sure the other side receives the blame. With that in mind, one of the few ways I see a plan moving forward is if a bipartisan group hashes out a deal and then presents it as a unified front.

While I'm a little uncomfortable about the closed door meetings for such a crucial decision making process, the "Gang of 6" senators have been meeting in an attempt to present that unified plan. Virginians should be proud to know that Mark Warner is one of those 6 senators. As Brian Moran pointed out in a statement on Tuesday, Warner has a history of making tough budget decisions and its his administration that's often credited with starting the string of Democratic successes in Virginia.

“Mark Warner built his public service career on his ability and willingness to face up to a problem and make the tough decisions that others kick down the road,” said Moran. “That’s what he did as Governor and that’s what he’s doing as our Senator.

“In 2004 Governor Warner faced a massive budget deficit. Instead of using short-term fixes or balancing the budget on the backs of students and working families, he cut spending, made government more efficient and formed a bipartisan coalition that brought structural balance back to the Virginia budget. That 2004 budget deal resulted in a budget surplus, which enabled a record investment in education that helped create jobs and grow our economy.

“As a Governor and a Senator, Mark Warner has proven that it is possible to bring people together and face challenges in a way that makes life better for middle class families. That is the approach that made Virginia the best managed state in the nation during his and Governor Kaine’s administrations, and it is the same approach that is guiding his efforts to bring those results to the budget discussion in Washington."

If Warner is able to use his position in the Gang of 6 to do anything like he did while in the governor's mansion, then we should be able see a decent deal made in regards to the continuing resolution. As we wait to see if the Gang of 6 can come up with anything, however, we're left looking at huge differences between the parties on critical programs like Head Start and pre-K education.

One Way to Reduce the Deficit: Do Away with the Dollar Bill

While I was working up in Rochester, NY, I went to Canada a few times with friends (we were only about a 90 minute drive from the border). I always found it interesting that there are no $1 bills in Canada because they have $1 and $2 coins instead. Before you dismiss this as simply a random observation, it turns out doing away with the $1 bill is actually a good investment for the federal government. According to a GAO report, converting to a $1 coin could actually save the government $5.5 billion over 30 years. During a time when people are extremely worried about the debt, this could offer an average savings of $184 million a year.

Over the years, there have been several attempts in the US to popularize the gold dollar coin. Since 2000, for instance, there have been gold coins with Sacagawea on them. When these first came out, I remember it being a big deal when vending machines were updated to accept the coin. The excitement surrounding the new coins has definitely warn off, however, and the only time I really run into them now is when I've bought stamps from the machines at post offices and got the gold dollars as change.

Based upon what I've read, it appears as though the only way dollar coins will really catch on is if the government phases out the dollar bill. Change isn't always easy (pun intended), but countries like Canada and the UK have proven that people will get used to the new currency rather quickly. So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, one way of reducing our deficit would be to simply do away with the dollar bill.

Video: President Obama At Wakefield High School

President Barack Obama has made appearances at Wakefield High School in Arlington, VA twice now during his presidency. Here's video of his appearance yesterday with Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia.

Congress Debating Funding For Early Childhood Education

Dr. Edgar Hatrick, the superintendent of Loudoun County’s public school system, used an appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to say that an early childhood education is extremely important. While this is the case throughout the country, Hatrick said it’s especially important in some of the larger and wealthier school districts that can be found in Northern Virginia because students are expected to arrive in kindergarten with a strong foundation in things like reading and writing. This means that students don’t have access to a good preschool education are forced to play catch up. Nonetheless, there is now a battle on the Hill over whether pre-K programs should be properly funded.

Although a pre-K education is a major factor in a child’s success when entering Kindergarten, many of the programs offering these services are expensive and many low income families can’t afford to send their children to preschool. That is why programs like Head Start, which helps to ensure low income students have access to a quality pre-K education, are so important. People who are involved with the education community realize this and are fighting hard to ensure that Head Start’s funding is preserved in the budget discussions. As Rep. Bishop pointed out after hearing testimony from Dr. Hatrick, however, the continuing resolution passed by the House Republicans cut $1.1 billion from the head start program.

With the House Republicans already illustrating that they’re willing to cut funding from programs that provide young children the skills they need to succeed in school, there’s a lot of discussion about what can be done to ensure these students actually receive the resources they need. The Senate is taking the lead on this as Sen. Bob Case introduced the Supporting State Systems of Early Learning Act. His office described the bill as one that “would establish an Early Learning Challenge Fund to help states build and strengthen systems of early learning, so that more low-income children ages zero to five have access to high-quality early learning and development opportunities that prepare them for success in school and beyond.”

Not only does this move make sense on a human nature level (we all want to make sure that students have the opportunity to succeed), but Sen. Casey put out a statement highlighting how investing in early childhood education also makes financial sense.

“Investing in early learning pays off. Economists have estimated a return on investment for early childhood education programs of approximately 16 percent,” said Senator Casey. “This legislation will establish a one-time investment to help states raise the bar on program quality and provide more children with early access to high-quality education.”

“Early education is a sound investment with a proven return on investment, which is why the business community supports early learning initiatives like the Supporting State Systems of Early Learning Act that Senator Casey is introducing,” said Jack Brennan, former Chairman and CEO of the Vanguard Group and member of the Pennsylvania Early Learning Investment Commission. “This bill calls upon states, in partnership with private entities, to invest in improving the quality of early learning.”

While this program only covers about one-third of the cuts that the House GOP is proposing towards pre-K education, a lot of education advocates are happy to see Sen. Casey taking some leadership on the issue. Even the business community is rallying behind the bill because they realize this is an investment that will reap rewards well beyond the initial dollar amount. The business community also likes the fact that the money is awarded in a competitive process, which is something that we also saw them rally behind when it was implemented with Obama’s Race to the Top program. With all that being said, it will be tough to get the GOP controlled House to sign on to the new investments in education in light of the commitment they’ve already shown to cutting funding to similar programs.

Photos from 11th CD Democratic Committee Event in Fairfax, VA

The Democratic Committee for Virginia's 11th CD held an event this afternoon in the City of Fairfax that honored several activists from the area. In addition to giving out awards to people from each of the jurisdictions in the 11th (Fairfax County, the City of Fairfax, and Prince William County), there was also an award given to a labor activist from Northern Virginia. I'll be providing more analysis of the speeches given at the event in a post tomorrow but I wanted to post some of the photos from tonight's event. Hope you enjoy (you can expand the slideshow to full screen by clicking the arrows in the bottom corner.

House Holds Hearing On Mine Safety

Especially when there was a large public debate surrounding the Wise County Coal Plant, there’s been a lot of discussion in Virginia and other states in the region about the environmental impacts of coal mining. While these discussions have raised some very important issues, they often overlooked some of the crucial information about the health and safety of people working in the mines. In light of the explosion that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia in April of 2010, however, there has been an increased amount of attention giving to safety issues.

Part of the increased attention on these issues came in the form of Joseph Main, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, testifying at a hearing held by the House subcommittee on Workforce Protections on Thursday. The focus of the hearing was for Members of Congress to receive an update on the “several regulatory and policy changes aimed at improving mine safety” that the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has implemented over the last six months.

While there are inspectors MSHA uses to help make sure mines meet safety standards, Secretary Main and several Members of Congress highlighted how we must also depend on miners to come forward when they see unsafe conditions in the mines. The culture that’s been in place at some mines, however, creates an environment that causes miners to avoid coming forward because they fear being fired or facing some other type of retribution. Everyone admits that the whistleblower protections that are currently have done some good, but this fear of retribution shows how there’s still a lot more work that needs to be done in challenging a work environment that discourages standing up for safety.

It’s not only whistleblower protections that are needed, however, as there was also some discussion about how some mine operators go beyond simply creating an atmosphere that intimidates whistleblowers. During the inspection process, for instance, some operators of some sites actually ask their employees to help prevent inspectors from noticing some of the conditions that might not meet standards. Rep. Lynn Woosley pointed out that this process was started when “staff radioed miners underground to warn” about the presence of inspectors. Since the tactics used by the inspectors were relatively well known to operators and miners, the folks in the mine could use this advance notice to “correct the condition or direct the inspector’s attention away from deficiencies.”

MSHA realizes that something had to change in order to prevent these practices from continuing and Secretary Main reported that they have begun conducting “impact inspections in a way that has shaken up even the most recalcitrant operators.” Just as an example of what they’ve done, many of the inspections now take place during off hours when the mine operators likely don’t expect inspectors to show up. Furthermore, there are many cases in which they’ve “taken hold of the mines’ phone lines upon arrival” and “gone into those mines in force, with sufficient personnel to cover the key parts of the mine quickly before hazards can be hidden or covered up.” As a result of these impact inspections, there have been “more than 4,100 citations and 380 orders for violations of mine safety and health laws, rules and regulations” issued. This is important because it shows that there methods are working and are doing something to help make the mines safer for workers.

The news of an increased number of citations is good news for mine safety, but several people pointed out that there are still some companies that try to game the system because there is such a backlog of citations. Rep. George Miller, for instance, highlighted how there is an 80,000 citation backlog and it often takes 824 days to take a citation to final order. Realizing that this is a problem with the system, some operators are contesting citations in order to prolong the process and buy time and save money while waiting for their file to make it to the top of the pile.

Secretary Main said his department realizes this is a problem and is committed to taking action against those mines that are consistently failing to meet safety standards. As the Secretary pointed out in his testimony, a prime example of this can be seen in “MSHA’s decision –for the first time since the passage of the Mine Act -- to seek a federal court injunction under the Mine Act’s pattern of violation junction section.” This action was taken against Massey Energy’s mine in Pike County, Kentucky, which had accumulated 1,952 citations between July 2008 and June 2010 for “improper ventilation, failure to support the mine roof, failure to clean up combustible materials, failure to maintain electrical equipment,” and other violations. Despite the fact that the mine did end up shutting down, Main admits that the “pattern of violations, or POV process, is broken.” As a result, MSHA is encouraging changes in the process such as allowing the department to go after mines that clearly show a pattern of violations even if all of the citations haven’t made their way to final order.

In the end, everyone participating in the hearing tended to agree that there needs to be action taken to protect the workers who are going into the mines every day. While the explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine has brought some attention to mining safety, we simply cannot wait until there’s another explosion to realize that we’re not doing everything possible to protect our workers. As we move forward, it will therefore be very interesting to see what regulations are put into place to help fix the pattern of violations process and ensure that mining companies are no longer able to avoid meeting safety standards by gaming the system.

Boehner says the House will defend DOMA

On Thursday, there was a large contingent of people from across the country who were participating in HRC's lobby day. According to a group of them I ran into just outside the US Capitol, they were "getting some traction" on anti-bullying laws and were also talking with legislators about ENDA and tax policies relating to health benefits for same sex partners. They were also pleased to hear about the recent announcement that the Obama administration won't be defending Defense of Marriage Act in the court system.

Sadly, there might be some cause for their celebration over DOMA to be short lived because John Boehner announced yesterday that he "will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend" the Defense of Marriage Act. This ultimately means that the House of Representatives will send counsel to the Federal courts in order to defend the law since the Obama Administration won't.

The group making the decision about whether to proceed consists of the Speaker, the majority and minority leaders, and the majority and minority whips. In other words, the Republicans have a 3 to 2 majority and will likely vote to proceed with defending the policy. With that in mind, both Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer have come out in opposition to defending the law. The following is what Rep. Hoyer had to say:

“The Speaker has indicated he is going to convene the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to decide whether to intervene in cases concerning the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe the Administration has correctly concluded that the statute is discriminatory and unconstitutional. I therefore will oppose intervening in cases regarding this Act.

“The Justice Department's decision not to defend this law is not without precedent. Since 1979, there have been over 50 instances in which both Democratic and Republican Administrations have declined to defend acts of Congress. Rarely has the House intervened to defend the constitutionality of statutes that the Justice Department has declined to defend.”

Video: Dick Saslaw Discusses Abortion Law on Kojo Nnamdi Show

There's been a lot of discussion about the abortion law that passed the General Assembly. As there have been some people who are going after the Democratic leadership in the state senate for allowing the bill to pass, Dick Saslaw used an interview on the Kojo Nnamdi to claim he's staunchly pro-choice and this was the first time in over 80 attempts that the GOP have been able to get an abortion bill by him in the Senate.

Here's video of the discussion:

Gerry Connolly Won't Run for Senate

Although there was some discussion about Gerry Connolly potentially running for the US Senate in 2012, I had heard from a lot of people close to him that he thought Tim Kaine should run. Of course, the question has been whether or not Kaine actually would enter the race. In what might be a sign of how Kaine is moving towards making a decision, Gerry has now officially taken his name out of consideration and is encouraging Kaine to run.

As I said in my recent speech at the Democratic Party of Virginia dinner in Richmond, Tim Kaine is a man of conviction and strong values. Tim is a pubic servant in the truest sense of the word. He would make a great U.S. Senator and I hope he decides to run.

I want to continue to be a strong, common-sense voice for Northern Virginia in the Congress as we grapple with tough decisions on federal spending that have a direct impact on the families of the 11th District.

This shouldn't be too surprising because a lot of people who would likely be among Gerry's most vocal supporters in a Democratic primary are also Tim Kaine supporters. Since Kaine has the national connections through his position as DNC chair and has already proven that he can win statewide, I had a lot of people tell me that they were leaning towards Kaine but would support Gerry if he didn't run.

While Gerry isn't running for Senate in 2012, his campaign will still getting a lot of attention because his race was so close in 2010. This has actually already started because Gerry was one of fifteen Democrats who were put onto the DCCC's front-line program. Despite the fact that this program is designed to protect vulnerable incumbents, there are some good signs for Gerry's re-election chances. In a year that saw a swarm of Republicans defeating incumbent Democrats, for instance, Gerry was the only freshman Democrat from Virginia to win a second term and many insiders also believe his moderate district will become slightly more Democratic after redistricting. What all of this means is that when you consider how close the Senate race is going to be, Gerry's decision to seek another term in the House of Representatives is probably a good one for his own political career and will go a long ways towards helping keep the 11th District seat in Democratic hands.

Absence of Rep. Gabby Giffords is Felt on the Hill

According to the Hill, the tragic shooting in Tucson is having some impact on the race to replace the retiring Arizona Republican Jon Kyl in the US Senate.

Arizona Rep. Ed Pastor (D) said he's considering entering the Arizona Senate race, but is waiting to see whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) recovers to mount a bid.

Giffords was considered the Democrats' best hope for picking up the seat being vacated by Sen. Jon Kyl (R), who announced his retirement last month. She remains in a Houston hospital where she is recovering from a January gunshot wound to the head.

Pastor would have a nice jump start if he decided to run for Senate because he had over $1 million in his campaign account at the beginning of the year. He comes from the Pheonix area, which is where a lot of the progressive base in Arizona lives. Pastor's district, for instance, was the best performing district in the state for Obama (he received 66% of the vote there, which is extremely impressive considering that McCain's from Arizona). With that being said, Pastor's popularity extends beyond just the progressive base as he ran more than 6 points ahead of Obama in 2008 and was able to receive 67% of the vote during the difficult climate for Democrats during the 2010 election.

Rep. Giffords was also in the news yesterday because she was one of 15 members named to the DCCC's Frontline program. This is a list of Representatives who the DCCC believes are the most vulnerable in 2012. As DCCC Chairman Steve Isreal said in a statement, however, these "members are battle tested and survived tough re-elections to return to Congress.” They have therefore proven that they can win, its worthwhile "making sure they have the money, message and mobilization needed to be successful and continue fighting for the middle class families and small businesses in their districts.”

UPDATE: In case you didn't know this already, Rep. Giffords serves on the Armed Services Committee. While she's recovering from being shot, her presence is still felt in the Committee room. Not only is the ranking Democrat on the committee (Rep. Adam Smith) working with her office to make sure her concerns are addressed during hearings, but there is an empty chair with her name card displayed during a hearing.

School Districts Struggle With Data Reporting Requirements

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on education regulations and how their enforcement impacted schools. It quickly became apparent to everyone in the room that the panelists and many Members of Congress had some major concerns about the data collection process. That being said, people on all sides of the issue tended to agree that the schools have to been held accountable somehow since they are receiving funding from the federal government. The problem that everyone seemed to have, however, is that they don’t believe the data is collected in an efficient manner. On top of that, the data collection process can take much needed time and resources away from the classroom – especially in smaller school districts.

A prime example of how the frustration expressed by the panelists about data reporting process came from the testimony of Dr. Edgar Hatrick who is the superintendent of Loudoun County Public Schools. In Loudoun County, Hatrick said the amount of time needed for reporting data essentially results in the equivalent of six full time employees. He specifically highlighted how “the Office of Civil Rights reporting requirement comes with no funding and ignores the availability of this information from State Education Agencies.” He also later said that because the information gleamed from the data reported by school systems often takes several years before getting back to the district, he couldn’t think of any time the data he’s had to report has actually lead to something helpful.

The reason that the Office of Civil Rights and other offices collect this data is so that they can make sure underserved students are actually receiving the services that they need. While it might not have been implemented efficiently or funded correctly, No Child Left Behind was supported by people on both sides of the aisle because they wanted schools to make sure those living in poverty and/or facing cultural oppressions had the opportunity to succeed. As Rep. George Miller (the ranking Member of the Committee) pointed out in his opening statement, prior to the passage of NCLB there was very little data available to help make sure that students truly were able to overcome opportunities to overcome struggles.

“Prior to the law, only 11 states had access to data that showed gender or ethnicity. Only 6 states had data about the achievement of poor students. Only 7 states were able to see data about the achievement of students based on their English proficiency.

These students were invisible. They were struggling in classrooms across the country, and nobody knew. So nobody did anything to fix it. We passed No Child Left Behind to tackle this harsh reality, and we meant what the title said.”

Anyone who has followed the debate around education reform recently knows that despite the well meaning spirit behind NCLB, it’s simply not working. The question therefore becomes: what changes need to be made in order to make sure underserved students receive the resources they need? This is something that Rep. Bobby Scott began to get at during his questioning of the panelists by asking about what could be done to reduce the burdens of reporting data while still getting the information that various federal offices need.

The consensus coming from the panel was that there could be efforts made to mainstream the reporting of data. Instead of having to report data about ESOL students to 73 different places, for instance, there could be a centralized location that this data is reported to. This would allow for the information to still be available, but to reduce the burden on the school systems when they’re reporting what they’ve collected. As Dr. Hatrick pointed out, this is especially important for small school districts that don’t have the resources and staff that are available to larger and wealthier districts like Loudoun County. During his questioning, Rep. Scott also highlighted how having a centralized reporting location might also help to get the information resulting from the data collection back to the districts in a shorter period of time. As a result, the data would be a lot more relevant to the districts.

What’s important to note is that despite the calls of some people on the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party to abolish the Department of Education, most of the panelists and Members of Congress present at the hearing seemed to believe that federal education efforts have done some good. Even as Hatrick said he didn’t think the federal programs hadn’t done much for Loudoun, for instance, he pointed out that smaller school districts would probably tell you something different. As we move forward, it’s therefore a matter of figuring out how to make the requirements more efficient so that they can have an even greater positive impact on school districts of all sizes.

Defense Officials: Operating Under Continuing Resolutions Can Impact Small Businesses

Over the last few weeks I've heard several Obama Administration officials suggest that operating on short term continuing resolutions can be detrimental to government programs. Whether it was in official testimony or one on one conversations I had with them, these officials highlighted how operating on continuing resolutions (CR) has resulted in the government delaying the implementation of certain programs. In what appears to be a coordinated effort, however, they stepped up the rhetoric yesterday and highlighted how repeated short term CRs can actually have a negative impact on small businesses who do business with the government.

A prime example of this can be seen in testimony that Zack Lemnios, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, gave to a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee this afternoon. When speaking about how there are many small businesses who help the Department of Defense develop technology that supports our troops, Lemnios said that long term stable funding is needed “to ensure that many of our small businesses that develop those capabilities in fact stay in business. Operating under a long CR, or well below the Presidents FY 2011 budget request, puts both at risk and results in both the loss of time and the ability to support our troops.”

Now I had some people suggest to me yesterday that this gets dangerously close to suggesting that you can't support the troops if you are drastically cutting the DoD's budget, but that isn't what's being said. Lemnios and other Defense officials are simply highlighting how the uncertainty of the CR can cause delays of crucial programs and doesn't do good for our small businesses. This is especially important when you consider that we still have men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and our country is recovering for the toughest economic times since the great depression.

It appears as though that message is being heard by folks in Congress because Rep. Steny Hoyer took to the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday and said that we need to pass a long term budget plan so that "all who rely on the government, who work for the government, who have contracts with the government, can rely on some certainty. You've talked a lot about certainty on your side of the aisle. You're absolutely right, we need certainty. The business community needs certainty, individuals need certainty, and the government needs certainty."

While there is still work that needs to be done on making sure a CR passes that would fund the government for the rest of FY2011, hearings and discussions are already taking place regarding the 2012 budget. The unpredictability about which programs might be cut during the next debate on a CR has already caused some harm and to continue this process for another year would simply be irresponsible. In the end, it's not just the DoD that would suffer if this isn't accomplished. There are thousands of civilian jobs and small businesses that depend on Defense projects that could be delayed (or cut all together) if an actual 2012 budget isn't passed.

Steny Hoyer on the 50th Anniversary of the Peace Corps

One of my best friends is considering volunteering for the Peace Corps and I recently wrote her a recommendation. Based upon what she's told me about the process and the questions I was asked when giving her the recommendation, it's obvious they thoroughly vet potential volunteers and make sure they receive high quality volunteers who are truly ready for the two year commitment they are making. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that the program has proven to be such a rewarding program for both the volunteers and the communities they serve.

As today is the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, there have been a lot of people commenting on the program. This is what Steny Hoyer, the Democratic Whip in the House of Representatives, had to say about the anniversary.

“Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, established by President John F. Kennedy to foster international cooperation and provide life-changing service opportunities to generations of Americans. Since its founding, more than 200,000 Americans have served with the Peace Corps, promoting goodwill by addressing global needs and providing technical assistance to 139 countries throughout the world. Thanks to the hard work and service of its volunteers, more developing countries have the skilled workers needed to build and staff schools, strengthen public health, promote business development, increase access to clean water, and assist with other critical services.

“This is also a moment for us to reflect on the life of Sargent Shriver, who skillfully guided the Peace Corps as its first Director, and who inspired Americans through a lifetime of good works. I am pleased that his faith in service lives on through the Peace Corps’s volunteers.”

Is Tim Hugo Allergic To Democrats Who Produce Results?

During my time organizing in Rochester last year, one of the perks was getting away from the horrible traffic in Northern Virginia. It was nice to be able to go places – even if it did mean I’d be on the road around 5:30 or 6pm. Now that I’m back in Virginia, however, I’m not surprised that I’m constantly receiving emails from various politicians about what they’re doing to fix our transportation woes. Today is no exception as I received emails from several elected officials about the ribbon cutting ceremony marking the opening of the westbound ramps off I-66 at Monument Drive and Stringfellow Road to off-peak hours.

Since I live in the Centreville area, I use these ramps essentially every time that I go to downtown DC and have closely followed the discussion about opening them up to more commuters. I was therefore very interesting in seeing what some of our elected officials had to say now that the ramps now officially have expanded hours. While all of the statements highlighted some of the benefits of easing long commutes, the really interesting aspect of this was seeing who the various elected officials recognized in their statements.

Del. Tim Hugo, for instance, only recognized Republican officials when he said “Major credit goes to Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez, Governor Bob McDonnell, Congressman Frank Wolf, Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton and Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity." This very clearly was an effort to make sure he only credited members of his own party, even though it was a bipartisan affair. Beyond sending out a photo of him at the ribbon cutting ceremony and mentioning that he’s on the transportation committee in the House of Delegates, however, he didn’t offer any information on what he did to help make sure these ramps were opened up to more users.

Chairman Sharon Bulova recognized Gov. Bob McDonnell and the staff that worked on the project. In fact, she applauded them for getting “this project off the shelf and completed." She then went on to say that "without their efforts, we would not be here today." She also described how the Board of Supervisors had taken some actions in order to help expand access to these ramps. In other words, she’s not trying to limit credit to herself or members of her own party just to win a few more votes. She’s actually giving credit to those who deserve it, which actually wins a lot more points in my book because it shows integrity.

Congressman Gerry Connolly’s office also sent out a statement about the ceremony and explained how this was something that Gerry began working on back in 2007 while he was still Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. In addition to recognizing the work that the Board of Supervisors has done recently, his statement described how he interacted with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Federal Highway Administrator Victor Menendez while trying to get to where we are today.

So looking at the statements that I received, both Democrats demonstrated the work that they had done on the project but also highlighted how they couldn’t take all the credit. Hugo, however, didn’t explain why he deserved credit and obviously tried to make it look like only Republicans were concerned about transportation. Unfortunately, this blatant partisanship from Hugo is something that isn’t too surprising because he only faced nominal opposition in the 2009 election and is now serving as the head of the Republican caucus. Hopefully that will change in 2011 and we’ll see a Delegate who represents the interests of the 40th HoD District instead of just the GOP’s leadership.

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Tim Hugo and he wanted to point out that he believes in giving credit where credit is due. In fact, he highlighted how he gave credit to Victor Menendez from the Federal Highway Administration who is a Democrat. He also said that Julie from his office had done some work on this issue back in 2007.