Tag Archives: obama
US House approves one-year ‘Obamacare’ delay in bill
House Republicans defy Obama; shutdown nears (Reuters) / 29 September 2013 The US House of Representatives on Sunday, ignoring a White House veto threat, approved a one-year delay in funding major provisions of President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law as part of a government funding bill. The House of Representatives early on Sunday brought the federal government closer to a shutdown as it voted to delay President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law for a year as part of an emergency spending bill. By a mostly partisan vote of 231-192, the Republican-controlled House approved the ‘Obamacare’ amendment, despite a veto threat from the White House. It also voted 248-174 to repeal a medical device tax that aims to help fund healthcare programs under the 2010 law. And in a sign that lawmakers might be resigned to a government shutdown beginning Tuesday, the House unanimously approved a bill to keep paying US soldiers in the event the government runs out of money to run many programmes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterated on Saturday that the House bill would be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which is not scheduled to meet until 2 p.m. on Monday. Obama also threatened to veto any bill that delays his healthcare restructuring. There is a slight chance the two sides could reach a funding deal before the government’s fiscal year ends at midnight on Monday. Congress could also act at any time to end the impasse if a shutdown did occur. But the bitterness of the House debate on Saturday night that spilled into early Sunday did not bode well for prospects of a compromise. “You have been hijacked by a group called the Tea Party,” Democratic Representative David Scott of Georgia said angrily, referring to the powerful conservative, anti-government movement that holds significant sway over Republicans. “The American people deserve to have time to see what this monstrosity will do before it is implemented,” shouted Republican Representative John Culberson of Texas, referring to ‘Obamacare.’ The high-stakes manoeuvring between Democrats and Republicans is likely to continue through much of Monday. The standoff is also a harbinger for the next big political battle in Washington: a far more consequential bill to raise the federal government’s borrowing authority. Failure to raise the debt ceiling by mid-October could result in the government defaulting on its obligations. Medical device tax The funding impasse is the culmination of more than three years of failed conservative efforts to repeal ‘Obamacare,’ a programme aimed at extending health insurance to millions of those without coverage. Republicans argue that ‘Obamacare’, which is set to launch on October 1, is a massive and unnecessary government intrusion into medicine that will cause premiums to skyrocket and damage the economy. Failure to pass a funding bill would close down much of the government for the first time since 1996. More than a million federal employees would be furloughed from their jobs, with the impact depending on the duration of a shutdown. The current timetable could leave House Speaker John Boehner with the most difficult decision of his career: whether to approve a straight-forward spending bill passed on Friday by the Senate or allow the government shutdown to begin. Neither side wants to be the last to cast the final vote that would lead to a shutdown, a concern that has turned the funding measure into a hot potato tossed between the two chambers. While polls consistently show the American public is tired of political showdowns and opposed to a shutdown, House conservatives were jubilant about the fight. “This is a win-win all the way around,” said Republican Arizona Representative Matt Salmon, who described the mood of Republicans before the vote as “ecstatic.” Republicans and a handful of Democrats also approved an amendment to the bill repealing a tax on medical devices that helps fund the healthcare law to the tune of about $30 billion. That provision, sought with heavy lobbying by the medical device industry, has been supported in the past by some Democratic senators. In a government shutdown, spending for functions considered essential, related to national security or public safety, would continue along with benefit programmes such as Medicare health insurance and Social Security retirement benefits for seniors. But civilian federal employees – from people who process forms and handle regulatory proceedings to workers at national parks and museums in Washington – would be temporarily out of work. The last government shutdown ran from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996, and was the product of a budget battle between Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republicans, led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. Republicans suffered a public backlash when voters re-elected Clinton in a landslide the following November, a lesson never forgotten by senior Republicans, including Boehner. This time, Boehner tried to avoid a showdown but was overruled by his rebellious caucus, largely influenced since the 2010 election by newcomers endorsed by the Tea Party. While Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the top House Republicans, worked behind the scenes, they did not deliver floor speeches in support of the bill – something they often do on major legislation. Instead, some of the House’s most conservative members who drove the ‘Obamacare’ delay effort, dominated the debate. With Boehner effectively sidelined, rank-and-file Republicans boasted of their unity. Members chanted, “Vote, vote, vote, vote,” in their closed-door meeting, they reported later. Afterward, Democratic Representative Louise Slaughter of New York, took to the House floor to accuse Republicans of throwing a “temper tantrum” about ‘Obamacare’ under pressure from ‘Tea Party extremists.’ Conservative and liberal groups, from the Tea Party to women’s rights organisations, have been cashing in on the showdown over ‘Obamacare,’ using it to rally supporters and raise money for next year’s congressional elections. Continue reading
USDA Announces Support For Producers Of Advanced Biofuel
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:33 pm | Updated: 2:33 pm, Fri Sep 13, 2013. OMAHA, Neb. — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Friday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making payments to support the production of advanced biofuel. USDA is making nearly $15.5 million in payments to 188 producers through the Advanced Biofuel Payment Program. USDA Rural Development Acting Under Secretary Doug O’Brien made the announcement on Vilsack’s behalf in Omaha, Neb., at the National Advanced Biofuels Conference. USDA remains focused on carrying out its mission, despite a time of significant budget uncertainty. Today’s announcement is one part of the Department’s efforts to strengthen the rural economy. “Producing advanced biofuels is a major component of the drive to take control of America’s energy future by developing domestic, renewable energy sources,” O’Brien said. “These payments represent the Obama Administration’s commitment to support an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy.” The funding is being provided through USDA’s Advanced Biofuel Payment Program, which was established in the 2008 Farm Bill. Under this program, payments are made to eligible producers based on the amount of advanced biofuels produced from renewable biomass, other than corn kernel starch. Examples of eligible feedstocks include but are not limited to: crop residue; animal, food and yard waste; vegetable oil; and animal fat. O’Brien noted that today’s announcement serves as another reminder of the importance of USDA programs for rural America and a reminder of the need for Congress to get a comprehensive Food, Farm and Jobs Bill done as soon as possible. “Job seekers in rural America need new and expanded investments in renewable energy, biofuel and bio-based product manufacturing, all of which can help create jobs in rural areas,” said O’Brien. Through the Advanced Biofuel Payment Program and other USDA programs, the department is working to support the research, investment and infrastructure necessary to build a strong biofuels industry that creates jobs and broadens the range of feedstocks used to produce renewable fuel. More than 290 producers in 47 states and territories have received $211 million in payments since the program’s inception. It has supported the production of more than 3 billion gallons of advanced biofuel and the equivalent of more than 36 billion kilowatt hours of electric energy. For example, Riverview, LLP, a Minnesota-based company, will be receiving an $8,040 payment to help offset the cost of producing electricity from two anaerobic digesters. The two digesters use manure from two of the company’s dairy operations to produce electricity, which is sold to Great River Energy. During the last quarter of 2012, the anaerobic digesters produced almost 4.9 million kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power more than 400 homes a year. American Biodiesel, Inc. (dba Community Fuels) in Encinitas, Calif., is receiving a $47,186 payment for its quarterly production of biodiesel from a variety of sources, including canola and soybean oil. The biodiesel reduces emissions and is primarily used as an alternative to diesel fuel. In the past, Community Fuels has used funds from the Advanced Biofuel Payment Program to install equipment and increase production at its bio-refinery at the Port of Stockton, Calif. View the complete list of producers receiving payments here. President Obama’s plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President’s leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way, strengthening America’s economy, small towns and rural communities. USDA’s investments in rural communities support the rural way of life that stands as the backbone of our American values. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Vilsack are committed to a smarter use of federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities. USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, has a portfolio of programs designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America. USDA has made a concerted effort to deliver results for the American people, even as the department implements sequestration, the across-the-board budget reductions mandated under terms of the Budget Control Act. USDA has already undertaken historic efforts since 2009 to save more than $828 million in taxpayer funds through targeted, common-sense budget reductions. These reductions have put USDA in a better position to carry out its mission, while implementing sequester budget reductions in a fair manner that causes as little disruption as possible. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users). Continue reading
Obama: I might lose congressional vote on Syria
Obama: I might lose congressional vote on Syria (AP) / 10 September 2013 President Barack Obama conceded Monday night he might lose his fight for congressional support of a military strike against Syria, and declined to say what he would do if lawmakers reject his call to back retaliation for a chemical weapons attack last month. The president sought to use a glimmer of a possible diplomatic solution — including vaguely encouraging statements by Russian and Syrian officials on Monday — as fresh reason for Congress to back his plan. Syria welcomed a proposal to turn over all of its chemical weapons to international control. Obama said Syria’s statement was a potentially positive development, but he voiced skepticism about that the regime of President Bashar Al Assad would follow through. He said it was yet another reason for lawmakers to give him the backing he is seeking. He spoke in a series of six television network interviews planned as part of a furious lobbying campaign aimed at winning support from dubious lawmakers and well as a war-weary public. Speaking of Assad’s government, Obama said the credible threat of a military strike led by the United States “has given them pause and makes them consider whether or not they could make this move” to surrender control of their chemical weapons stockpile. “If we don’t maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military pressure, I do not think we will actually get the kind of agreement I would like to see,” Obama said on CNN. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cited “international discussions” in unexpectedly postponing a test vote originally set for Wednesday on Obama’s call for legislation backing a military strike. In a separate interview with NBC, Obama took the step — unusual for any politician — of conceding he may lose his campaign in Congress for authorization. “I wouldn’t say I’m confident” of the outcome, he said. “I think it’s fair to say that I haven’t decided” on a next step if Congress turns its back, the president told NBC. Obama arranged a trip to Congress on Tuesday as well as a prime time speech from the White House. The president picked up a smattering of support but also suffered a reversal when Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican, announced he had switched from a backer of military action to an opponent. Reid, the Senate majority leader, made a statement of support for the president’s request. “Today, many Americans say that these atrocities are none of our business, that they’re not our concern,” the Democrat said of Assad’s alleged gassing of civilians on Aug. 21. “I disagree. Any time the powerful turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the powerless, it is our business.” Others came down on the other side of the question. “I will vote ‘no’ because of too much uncertainly about what comes next,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican, reflecting concerns that even the limited action Obama was contemplating could lead to a wider war. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, also voiced opposition. “I strongly believe that we need the entire world, not just America, to prevent and deter the use of chemical weapons in Syria, or anywhere else on the globe,” she said. In the House of Representatives, one of two female Iraq war veterans in Congress announced opposition to military strikes. Legislation approved in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week would give Obama a maximum of 90 days to carry out a military attack, and it includes a ban on combat operations on the ground in Syria. Both of those limitations were last-minute concessions to critics of a military option, and it was unclear whether Reid would seek additional changes to build support. Despite the difficulty confronting Obama, an AP survey indicated the issue was hardly hopeless for the president, particularly in the Senate where Democrats maintain a majority, and perhaps also in the Republican-controlled House. The survey showed 23 Senate votes in favour of military authorization and 10 more leaning that way. Opponents totalled 20, with another 14 leaning in the same direction, with the remaining 33 senators undecided or publicly uncommitted. That created at least the possibility of the 60-vote majority that will be necessary to advance the bill. In the House, there were fewer than a dozen declared in support and 150 opposed or leaning that way. But 201 lawmakers had yet to take a public position, more than enough to swing the outcome either way. The public opinion polling was daunting for the president and his team. An Associated Press poll showed that 61 percent of those surveyed want Congress to vote against authorization of U.S. military strikes in Syria and 26 percent want lawmakers to support such an action, with the remainder undecided. Continue reading