Members Take Cash, Check or Fine Wine

In-Kind Donations Can Be Turned Into Dollars

• By Alex Knott
• Roll Call Staff
• March 17, 2011, Midnight

File Photo

Since 2001, donors attending Rep. Mike Thompson's parties and other contributors have given him more than 800 gifts of wine worth about $340,000.

Rep. Mike Thompson often holds fundraising events that are BYOB.

Since 2001, donors attending his parties and other contributors have given the California Democrat more than 800 gifts of wine worth about $340,000, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of campaign finance reports.

These donations — including vintages that were personally donated by many prominent winemakers, including Daniel Fetzer and Robert Mondavi — are used to cater Thompson’s fundraising events or put up for auction to bring in additional campaign funds. 

“I’ve always done it that way,” said Thompson, who generally holds an event in each of the seven counties in his wine country district every year. “My events have always been fun, and they have showcased the great things that you can find in my district.”

Thompson leads all Members of Congress in raising funds through this legal but unconventional type of fundraising called “in-kind contributions.” Instead of writing checks, donors give assets, services and other things of value to political groups. 

Campaigns, parties and political action committees accepted more than 
$17 million worth of in-kind donations from 2009 to 2010, according to Federal Election Commission records. Individuals are allowed to donate these items so long as they stay within the limits that cap contributions at $2,500 per election. 

Thompson, who co-chairs the Congressional Wine Caucus and owns 20 acres of vines himself, said it makes sense that wine makes up such a major percentage of his in-kind contributions because his district consists of counties that are the “epicenter for wine.” 

“Every event I have has a silent-auction component,” he said. “It provides a way that people can participate in helping me get re-elected, whether it’s a fishing trip, a wooden bowl, a box of vegetables or a bottle of wine.”

In addition to these vast amounts of wine, Thompson has received an additional $300,000 in auction items since 2001 that make his contribution reports look almost like a bucket list.

Some of these in-kind donations include a jet boat tour, a fishing trip and two-day white-water rafting excursion. Luxury items for bid by the campaign have been a Porsche rental, a bracelet and a pearl necklace; more practical-minded donors could bid on a massage or a mammogram.

While Thompson’s in-kind vino could stock a wine cellar, Rep. Lynn Woolsey has received enough works of art to fill a small gallery. The California Democrat’s campaign received 46 pieces of artwork during the 2010 election cycle totaling almost $56,000. 

Most of these in-kind donations were sold at an auction with the funds going to the campaign. At least 38 of these donors were listed as “artists” in disclosure reports, while other items that were put up for bid came from writers and graphic designers. One contribution included a replica lightsaber donated by “Star Wars” creator George Lucas.

In addition to this art, the Woolsey campaign also reported an additional $20,000 of in-kind contributions including photography, flowers and catering at campaign events during the 2010 election cycle. 

In-kind contributions are a legal part of American politics and have been around as long as elections themselves. Over the years, they have allowed excited voters to give what they can to support their candidates. The 2010 election cycle had a significant number of these typical contributions as citizens donated millions in campaign signs, food and rent to candidates, parties and PACs.

But the past two years also had their share of unusual in-kind contributions. For instance, people donated 32 birdhouses, birdbaths and birdcages to the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association PAC.

“It’s an additional tool that our members use to raise PAC funds,” PAC manager Elliot Friedman said, explaining that sometimes these birdhouses are used as prizes for donors. Other unusual in-kind donations listed by the PAC include an Elvis beanie baby, a scarecrow and a turtle (presumably live).

Similarly, a Pennsylvania farmer and his wife gave Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) a $178 hog that was later listed as being given to charity. A Northbrook, Ill., homemaker donated $1,920 in “helicopter services” to former Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) during her unsuccessful re-election bid.

New York Republican House candidate Greg Ball received $1,250 worth of teeth whitening items for auction from two New York dentists. On the other hand, more than $4,600 in cigars and cigar-related products were donated separately as in-kind contributions to Reps. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.).

Job Creators, Experts Urge Immediate Implementation of Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Increase Exports, Create Jobs

Posted by Katie Boyd on March 17, 2011

Today, the House Ways & Means Committee Subcommittee on Trade, chaired by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), held a hearing on the stalled Colombia free trade agreement, part of a series of hearings on job-creating trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. According to the independent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), implementing the agreement would increase U.S. exports by $1.1 billion and add $2.5 billion per year to U.S. GDP.  As several witnesses at today’s hearing confirm, the increase in U.S. exports to Colombia would not only help grow our economy, but would also create thousands of much-needed jobs in the United States. Here’s what experts and job creators had to say about the economic impact of the Colombia free trade agreement:

William D. Marsh, Vice President, Legal, Western Hemisphere, Baker Hughes Incorporated: Eliminating Barriers to Trade in Colombia Will Increase Exports and Create Jobs. “Eliminating that duty would allow Baker Hughes to more effectively compete in Colombia, increase our exports to serve Colombia’s expanded plans for oil and gas projects, and create more highly-skilled jobs here at home.” (Testimony, 3/17/11)

Thomas C. Dorr, President & CEO, U.S. Grains Council: Failure to Implement the Colombia FTA is “Eroding U.S. Competitiveness” and Costing Jobs. “The benefits provided under the U.S.-Colombia FTA will eliminate the tariff constraints that are eroding the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural exports. The United States is already losing hundreds of millions of dollars in annual exports and this is compounded by the loss or non-creation of thousands of U.S. jobs. … Without removal of these trade constraints, the U.S. coarse grains producer will lose this market.” (Testimony, 3/17/11)

Ambassador Peter F. Romero, President & CEO, Experior Advisory LLC: Delayed Action on the Colombia FTA Benefits U.S. Competitors at the Expense of Thousands of U.S. Jobs. “In the last two years, while the US has failed to ratify the FTA, Colombia has concluded trade deals with our competitors, Canada, Chile and the European Union and deepened existing agreements with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. As a result, in the last two years US exports of agricultural products have fallen by almost half and our market share has gone from 71% to around 27%. Passing the FTA would stop the erosion of our market share and would create new opportunities for trade and investment in this market of 46 million consumers, the third largest market in Latin America, after Brazil and Mexico.Critically, it would generate thousands of jobs at home at a time of great need.” (Testimony, 3/17/11)

General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Retired), President, BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC: “Stalled FTA Has Been a Disaster for US Economic Interests.” “The stalled FTA has been a disaster for US economic interests. … Our market share of Colombia’s agricultural imports fell from 75% to under 25% in two years. What are we thinking of? The competitive entry of the EU and Canada into Korea and Colombia alone create conditions under which we risk losing 383,000 US jobs.” (Testimony, 3/17/11)

As Chairman Brady has made clear, our economy – and the 13.7 million unemployed Americans – simply cannot afford further delay on the three pending trade agreements:

“Failure to move forward with the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement is undermining U.S. influence and leadership in our own hemisphere and putting at risk both good U.S. jobs and the competitiveness of U.S. exporters.  The United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while Colombia implements trade agreements with other major countries, putting American workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service providers, and other exporters at a competitive disadvantage.  We need a concrete plan now from the Administration for moving forward with the Colombia agreement, to allow Congressional consideration of all three pending trade agreements by July 1.”

Republicans in both Houses of Congress have called on President Obama to move all three trade agreements by July 1, and have pledged bipartisan support to ensure their passage and help create new jobs America.   

Lawmaker calls Gulf drilling lull ‘unacceptable’

Republican says Obama policies costing jobs, driving up energy costs

By Josh Brown

-

The Washington Times

9:08 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, 2011

A top House Republican on Wednesday called the Obama administration's de facto drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico "unacceptable," charging that the government's failure to issue new permits to drill along the coast was costing the region thousands of valuable jobs.

"The actions and policies of President Obama and his administration to … revoke, tax and drive up the cost of American-made energy is simply mind-boggling," Rep. Doc Hastings, Washington state Republican and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, told a Capitol Hill hearing.

"When it comes to an energy policy for our nation, the president is headed 180 degrees in the wrong direction. In the Gulf, thousands of Americans who depend on offshore energy production for their livelihood have found themselves out of work," Mr. Hastings said.

The Interior Department recently issued the first two deepwater drilling permits along the coast since the BP disaster, but Mr. Hastings and other critics say much more needs to be done.
Mr. Hastings said he plans to introduce legislation in the coming days "to put the Gulf of Mexico back to work."

"The Obama administration seems unmoved by thousands of lost jobs, rapidly rising gasoline prices and the threat these high prices pose to our economy. But this committee will not sit idly by," he said.

The panel heard from a number of residents of the region who gave personal testimony of economic hardship since the April 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the long struggle of the local drilling industry to recover.

Since the disaster, Mr. Hastings said, the Interior Department has issued only 39 permits for new drilling. The application process is backed up and many of the domestic jobs have moved overseas as many oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico for other fields, he said. Several witnesses said the situation called for swift action or the economic impacts will continue to get worse.

"The longer the slowdown goes on, the more chance that deepwater rigs will be increasingly committed to other parts of the world, robbing American workers who have worked so hard to gain the skills to do the tough work of fueling America," said Scott Angelle, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. "Many employers are being pushed to the edge of a financial cliff. Uncertainty cannot continue indefinitely without consequences."

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gulf of Mexico offshore oil at the normal production level accounts for 29 percent of the total U.S. crude oil production and 13 percent of natural gas production.

But Mr. Angelle said that, with new drilling virtually nonexistent, world gas prices and oil prices are spiking as production in the Gulf declines "by nearly 300,000 barrels of oil per day."

"We are taking a great leap backward," said Elizabeth Jones, chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more time it takes to issue permits, the more likely these numbers could double and even triple. It simply doesn't have to be this way."

But the economic testimony was challenged in part by Christopher Jones, who told a rapt hearing room of the events leading up to the death of his only brother, Gordon Jones, who was killed when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, 2010.

Mr. Jones told lawmakers that the disaster that took 11 lives could have been avoided had every company involved in the operation taken safety regulations more seriously, and he urged worker safety be established as a priority before drilling begins again.

"Nothing has been passed to ensure the safety of these people working on the rigs," he said. "I find it interesting how hard the oil industry is working to get back into the Gulf. At the very least, BP and others could work with Congress to improve worker safety so this never happens again."

Job Losses “Continue to Mount” Under Obama Energy Moratorium

Posted by Don Seymour on March 17, 2011

American Energy Initiative hearings continued in the House today as lawmakers examined the Obama Administration’s de facto energy moratorium and its impact on rising gas prices (they’re going up) and American jobs (there are fewer of them, and losses “continue to mount”).

The two hearings – hosted by the Energy & Power Subcommittee and Natural Resources Committee – were neatly summed up by James Adams of the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) who said, “President Obama’s moratorium needs to end because it is killing jobs, raising the price of energy and making our country vulnerable to unpredictable international political forces.”

In fact, Joseph Mason from Louisiana State University testified to the Energy & Power Subcommittee that“economic losses” in the Gulf Coast region “continue to mount” due to Obama Administration efforts to block new energy production. Mason says “[j]ob losses are estimated to have increased from 8,000 regionally and 12,000 nationally to 13,000 regionally and 19,000 nationally.”

Richard Newell with the Energy Information Administration told the Natural Resources Committee that “motorists currently experiencing a jump in pump prices will likely see further increases from now through the spring since the recent increase in crude oil prices has not yet been fully passed through to retail gasoline prices.” James Noewith the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition says “the rising price at the pump is the market’s indictment of the Administrations destructive oil and gas policies.”

Energy & Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said “[w]hen it comes to domestic energy production, the Administration is on the wrong side of the public’s wishes.” He cited a recent Rasmussen survey that shows “76 percent of Americans believe we do not do enough to develop our own oil and gas resources.”

Republicans are listening, and the new House majority is already working to keep its pledge “to increase access to domestic energy sources.”  The Washington Times reports that Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) “plans to introduce legislation in the coming days ‘to put the Gulf of Mexico back to work’”:

“A top House Republican on Wednesday called the Obama administration’s de facto drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico ‘unacceptable,’ charging that the government’s failure to issue new permits to drill along the coast was costing the region thousands of valuable jobs. …

“‘The Obama administration seems unmoved by thousands of lost jobs, rapidly rising gasoline prices and the threat these high prices pose to our economy. But this committee will not sit idly by,’ [Hastings] said.”

As Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said today, “increasing domestic production is a win for jobs” and a “win for energy prices.” He said “[h]igher supplies mean lower prices” for American families and small businesses – “this is basic economics.”

Check out the websites of the Energy & Commerce and Natural Resources committees for more information on today’s hearings and click here to learn more about the American Energy Initiative.

White House Fountain Dyed Green for St. Patrick’s Day

In honor of St. Patrick’s Day—and I would imagine the visit of Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny—the White House dyed the fountain in the North Lawn green.

Pence: Boehner will 'denounce' Tea Party critics in GOP

By Michael O'Brien - 03/17/11 11:16 AM ET

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) says he expects House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and the rest of GOP leadership to publicly denounce criticism of House conservatives pushing for deeper spending cuts. 

Pence, a former member of leadership, put pressure on Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and the rest of the leadership team to silence criticism by more veteran, centrist Republicans of the group of House conservatives who have demanded deeper spending cuts than what has been proposed in bills brought to the floor. 

"Look, I have no doubt that Speaker John Boehner and Republican Leader Eric Cantor and the rest of our leadership will privately, and if needs be, publicly denounce any effort to essentially bad mouth the intentions of Republicans that are simply fighting for fiscal responsibility," Pence said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. 

Pence's comment comes within the context of a fight over whether GOP leadership should give political cover to House conservatives, especially the Tea Party freshmen, who have clashed with establishment Republican lawmakers. Pence's representatives contend that the Indiana lawmaker was conveying his belief that Boehner and Cantor disagree with any staff assessment of a rift.

The internal divide among Republicans spilled into the open earlier this week in a House vote over a measure to fund the government for an additional three weeks, while cutting $6 billion from the budget. Fifty-four conservatives broke ranks with fellow Republicans to oppose the measure, reasoning that the cuts are too shallow, and that the short-term continuing resolutions will lead to an unsatisfying compromise. 

The rift pits more veteran Republicans, who essentially recognize that there is a tactical limit to how much spending that can be cut (especially with Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House), against the insurgent conservatives, who are hankering for a fight over spending, even if it leads to a politically risky government shutdown. 

Republicans who favor the current strategy point out that the number of GOP freshmen who broke with leadership on the vote for the short-term spending measure is proportional to the full Republican conference.

The murmurs of frustration spilled over on Wednesday evening into an article in the Daily Caller, the conservative news website, to which Pence responded on Thursday. 

"I’ve been on Capitol Hill for 10 years, and I found out a long time ago a lot of the times these anonymous aides, if they can’t beat your arguments, they just beat on you. And that’s all right. I’m a big boy. I can take it," Pence said. "The suggestion that people like Jeff Flake and Mike Pence are taking a stand for fiscal responsibility for political reasons, when we’re been taking these stands for a decade, you know, I mean, I opposed the Medicare prescription drug bill back in 2005, I opposed No Child Left Behind. You know, I’ve been taking a stand for fiscal responsibility and limited government for the last 10 years."

Updated at 11:43 a.m. and 8:09 p.m.

KIRK: Already too late to stop debt crisis?

 Illustration: Cuts by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

We are borrowing more than $5 billion per day. That’s $35 billion per week to run our government, totaling more than $1.5 trillion in borrowed money just to run it this year.

Harvard’s great economic historian, Niall Ferguson, noted that the decline of a country can be marked when it pays its moneylenders more than its army. His classic case comes from the French monarchy of the 1780s that failed to make interest payments on their debt, causing the financial collapse that triggered the revolution. Recently, Carmen Reinhard and Kenneth Rogoff wrote a brilliant book titled “This Time is Different, Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.” Their vast study revealed that most government officials always believe they are unique and different, causing them to make the same mistakes that crippled past nations and empires.

Using Mr. Ferguson’s tipping point, where are we today?

This year, the total cost of maintaining our Army will equal $137 billion. This same year, we will pay $225 billion in interest to our moneylenders for the use of $14 trillion borrowed from China, Japan and elsewhere. The startling conclusion is that we already have passed Mr. Ferguson’s tipping point by paying America’s money lenders more than our ownArmy.

It gets worse.

In just six years, the administration says that we will have to pay more than $661 billion to our moneylenders for interest on our rapidly expanding debt. With the expected cost of our Army at $195 billion, ourAir Force at $201 billion and our Navy/Marines at $217 billion, the total cost of $613 billion to provide for our common defense will be smaller than the $661 billion due to the moneylenders. In simple economic terms, we will be forced to pay our lenders their interest money first, before caring for our own safety - or risk seeing the value of the dollars in our own wallets disappear.

And these numbers are optimistic - they assume no severe spike in interest costs and no other war.

Recently, the Senate agonized over a short-term, two-week spending bill that made a $4 billion cut to spending. We should see that bill’s cuts as modest, knowing that we already pay $616 million daily in interest and more than $4 billion per week. In sum, the cuts of the two-week bill saved just one week of interest payments.

As dire as this situation is, there is a bright side. Our country has seen this movie before. Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt all accumulated economy-crushing debt as the fate of the United States hung in the balance. Our best example of what to do next comes from our own grandparents, rightly called the “Greatest Generation.”

Tom Brokaw coined the title for Americans of the 1930s and 1940s who defeated the Depression, Japan and Nazi Germany simultaneously. I would add a fourth, largely unnoticed victory that Mr. Brokaw missed. After three great victories for freedom, our grandparents spent the next 20 years paying the debt incurred to win the contests of the Depression, Pacific and Europe. Their accumulated debt of 1946 totaled more than 120 percent of our national income. Economists report that between economic growth and some inflation, the Greatest Generation reduced the crippling World War II debt that secured our victory during the late-1940s and 1950s. The return to more fiscally responsible government sparked an economic boom that built the superpower called the United States of America.

The lesson of history is clear. Each generation of Americans faces conflict, war and debt. Each generation is tested. The looming debt crisis facing this government is our generation’s test. While some government officials and bankers may still counsel ineffective action, saying “we owe this money to ourselves” or “because the dollar is the reserve currency, we can owe this amount,” we know that the crisis we face is not that different from the ones that crippled other nations. With spending cuts and discipline, we can master this danger as our grandparents did. The need to do the hard things - such as entitlement reform - is similar to the dramatic moves our grandparents made to secure our future.

But there is one difference between us and other nations: From the dawn of our revolution, the United States became the greatest force for human liberty and individual dignity ever known. The U.S. ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and spread freedom across Europe, Latin America and Asia. We are now challenged by 21st century world views in the Middle East and China that do not hold the Western value of the individual as high as we do. It is therefore doubly important to do the work needed to reduce spending and balance the books so that we restore the vitality of a free people and their cause of expanding liberty and individual dignity.

Next time you talk to a member of the Greatest Generation, don’t just say thank you. Ask them for advice on how to trim budgets and restore growth in the face of extraordinary debts - just as they did.

Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, represents Illinois.

Sen. Paul Unveils 5-Year Budget Plan: Eliminates Four Federal Agencies

Uploaded by SenatorRandPaul on Mar 17, 2011

Video from press conference today with Senators Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee, unveiling Sen. Paul's balanced budget proposal.

Breaking News: Rand Paul Introducing Five-Year Balanced Budget

Posted by Matt Hawes on 03/17/11 1:10 PM Last updated 03/17/11 3:38 PM   [Newer: Taking the Lead] [Older: Ron Paul on Afghanistan]

Senator Rand Paul will hold a press conference with Mike Lee and Jim DeMint at 2:15pm eastern to announce his comprehensive 5-year balanced budget proposal.  It not only addresses Washington's out of control spending problem but also the core issue of the philosophy of government by returning more power and government functions to states and localities.

Here are some quick facts on his plan:

SPENDING:
· Brings spending near historical average in very first year
   - Reduces spending by nearly $4 trillion relative to the President's budget
   - Achieves a $19 billion surplus in FY2016
   - Brings all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels
   - Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare, with final implementation by FY2016
       - Does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits
       - Block-grants Medicaid, SCHIP, foods stamps, and child nutrition
· Provides the President's request for war funding
   - Reduces military spending 6 percent in FY2012
· Eliminates four departments:
   - Department of Commerce (transfers certain programs)
   - Department of Education (preserves Pell grants)
   - Department of Housing and Urban Development
   - Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to Department of Defense)
· Repeals Obamacare
DEFICITS/DEBT:
· Never exceeds $12 trillion in debt held by public
· Creates $2.6 trillion less in deficit spending relative to the President's Budget
REVENUE:
· Extends all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief
· Permanently patches the alternative minimum tax
· Repeals Obamacare taxes

Call your senators today and urge them to support Rand Paul's 5-year balanced budget!  Stay tuned to CampaignForLiberty.com for more information after the press conference.

Update: ABCNews covers the unveiling and quotes Rand as saying:

ABC News' Mary Bruce reports:
Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., unveiled today his five-year path to a balanced budget, leaving several federal agencies behind. Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.
“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s side and on our side we felt we needed to put this forward to get the debate started, at the very least,” the freshman Senator explained at a Capitol Hill press conference this afternoon.
The proposal also calls for the repeal of “Obamacare,” but leaves entitlements untouched.
“There’s an argument for every federal program up here… Nobody’s coming up here asking me for money that’s not for a good reason. But the alternative is that we get into a point of financial disaster where nobody gets any money,” he said.
According to Paul, a Tea Party conservative, the proposal will bring spending to the “historic average since World War II” in just one year. He further claims the budget achieves a $19 billion surplus by FY2016 and will bring all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels.
Paul’s proposal gained support from freshman Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, who today challenged anyone who opposes the plan to come up with a better option.
“There may be some in this town who will disagree with the manner in which we’re proposing moving toward a balanced budget over a five year period. That’s fine, that’s understandable, that’s what this town is about... but to those who may disagree with it, to those who might want to attack it. I would ask that they come up with their own five year plan,” he said at the press conference.
As for the sweeping cuts, South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint said balancing the budget requires “letting things go” back to the state level.
“There are functions and departments at the federal level that need to be devolved to the states. Part of balancing the budget is restructuring and devolving federal functions back the states, local communities and people,” he said.
DeMint said he did not agree with “every particular thing in here,” but stressed the importance of balancing the budget.

WELFARE REFORM ACT OF 2011

Uploaded by RepublicanStudyComm on Mar 17, 2011

For more information, visit http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/wra.htm.
RSC Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), and Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) have introduced the Welfare Reform Act of 2011. This legislation will help food stamp recipients become independent of government assistance, give taxpayers a clearer picture of national welfare spending, and return the federal welfare budget to pre-recession levels after unemployment falls to 6.5%. Currently, there are 77 means-tested federal programs that provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income Americans.

The Welfare Reform Act of 2011The Most Effective Welfare Benefit Is the One that Leads to a Job

Congressional Republicans and President Bill Clinton enacted reforms in 1996 that required beneficiaries of a new welfare program (TANF) to either work or prepare for a job. President Clinton triumphantly declared these reforms would “end welfare as we know it,” and in fact millions of families have since moved off the TANF rolls and begun to provide for themselves.

Still, TANF is only 1 of 77 federal programs that provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income Americans. Despite the success of these reforms, combined state and federal welfare spending has almost doubled since 1996. Since President Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty in 1964, Americans have spent around $16 trillion on means-tested welfare. We will spend another $10 trillion over the next decade based on recent projections. Even with all these resources devoted to assistance for the poor, poverty is higher today than it was in the 1970s.

H.R. 1167: the Welfare Reform Act of 2011 builds on the reforms of 1996 by requiring food stamp recipients to either work or prepare for a job, helping them to become independent of government assistance. The bill also gives taxpayers a clearer picture of national welfare spending and returns the federal welfare budget to pre-recession levels after unemployment falls to 6.5%. It was introduced by RSC Chairman Jim Jordan (OH-4), Rep. Tim Scott (SC-01), and Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-5).


More Information: Video on Welfare Reform
Summary of H.R. 1167: the Welfare Reform Act
H.R. 1167 Full Bill Text
Press Release

RECENT NEWS 

03.17.2011
Jordan, Scott & Garrett Introduce the Welfare Reform Act of 2011
03.14.2011
RSC Chairman Jordan to Vote Against 3-Week Spending Bill
03.09.2011
Three Reasons Senate Dems Should Support the House Plan to Cut Spending

McConnell: Health Care Bill Worse Than Anyone Expected

Uploaded by RepublicanLeader on Mar 17, 2011

Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the one-year anniversary of the health care bill being signed into law:

SENATOR COLLINS INTRODUCES AMENDMENT TO FUND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

March 17, 2011

U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, today introduced an amendment to the pending small business legislation that would adequately fund the Department of Defense for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year.  Senator Collins has repeatedly urged the Senate Majority Leader to immediately bring the defense funding bill to the Senate floor, and in February introduced a similar amendment to the Patent Reform bill.

Like the House-passed Defense Appropriations bill, Senator Collins' amendment does not include funding for the alternate F-35 engine.  It also would

•    Fully fund shipbuilding at the President's budget request of $15.7 billion;
•    Restore funding for six conventional USAF F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft;
•    Transfer the procurement of Navy F-18s, 20 missile defense interceptors, Army RQ-7 UAVs, and Air Force MQ-9 UAVs from the Overseas Contingency Operations budget to the base budget.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Wednesday, Secretary of the Navy Raymond Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, and General James Amos described the harmful effects to Navy shipbuilding programs, readiness, and the Navy's public and private workforce.  At a Senate Army Caucus event this morning, Senator Collins heard directly from Secretary of the Army John McHugh about helicopter programs that are on hold, public workers and private contractors that have already been laid off or will be laid off soon, and deferring facility improvements for our soldiers because of the CR.  Also today, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and General Norton Schwartz testified about the harmful effect the CR would have on the Air Force.

"I have received testimony from every senior leader of our military services in the last two days - and they all have the same message: our military faces a crisis if the Department has to continue to operate under two-week CR extensions," said Senator Collins.

Senator Cornyn Addresses the Annual Border Issues Conference Luncheon

“Texans understand the importance of our economic partnership with Mexico”

Mar 17 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. —U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) today released the following keynote speech as prepared for delivery for the 15^th Annual Border Issues Conference luncheon hosted by theUnited States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and the Congressional Border Caucus: 

“Thank you, Al Zapanta.You continue to lead the Chamber with a clear vision that our two nations have even more potential to create jobs and economic opportunity. It’s good to be here with Congressman Reyes, Congressman McCaul, Secretary Napolitano, Ambassador Sarukhan, and all the civic and business leaders who have come to Washington for this conference.

“Texans understand the importance of our economic partnership with Mexico. Texas surpassed California 10 years ago as America’s largest exporter and 35 percent of Texas exports go to Mexico. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas projects that my state will add up to 374,000 jobs this year and see our state unemployment rate drop to 7 percent.

“One of the biggest factors in that growth will be exports. Texans want to expand our trade with Mexico, but they are becoming increasingly concerned with the impact of cartel-related violence on their businesses.

“In both Mexico and the United States, cartel-related violence is making national headlines. In January, two American missionaries were attacked by bandits near Reynosa. Their truck was riddled with bullets as they tried to make it back across the Pharr International Bridge, but unfortunately one of them did not make it back to McAllen alive.

“In February, two Texas teenagers from El Paso were killed at a used car dealership across the border in Juarez. Since December 2006, about 230 Americans have been murdered in Mexico—according to the State Department—and more than 35,000 Mexicans have lost their lives as well.

“As horrific as the violence is, sometimes the media misses a few of the other major stories along our southwest border. One of those stories involves illegal immigrants from countries very far from Mexico. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than 59,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended in the first 9 months of 2010 who were listed as “other than mexican.” Those include 663 individuals from “special interest countries”—such as Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, as well as the four nations currently on the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” which are Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan.

“Another story that’s deeply disturbing relates to public corruption. For years, drug cartels have tried to compromise elected officials and law enforcement in Mexico, but now that activity is moving north. Last week, federal officials indicted the mayor and police chief of Columbus, New Mexico.  They and several other individuals are accused of weapons trafficking on behalf of the cartels, but perhaps the biggest story many people are missing is the impact of cartel-related violence on job creation and economic opportunity.

“One of the biggest success stories along our southwest border has been manufacturing.  Hundreds ofmaquiladoras have created more than a million jobs and created investment opportunities on both sides of the border, but last year, border factory owners in the McAllen/Reynosa areas saw a steep decline in business. 80 percent said they were seeing reduced productivity, shift adjustments, limited visits by customers, and vendors. 20 percent of them had cancelled projects or put them on hold indefinitely.

“The violence has also had some effect on the way business leaders conduct their daily affairs. One owner of a factory in Juarez says that he no longer takes the same route to work every day. It’s just too dangerous. And he doesn’t share his schedule with anyone, including those on his management team.

“The retail sector is also suffering in many border communities. In Brownsville, Texas, for example, a family business that has been a fixture in the community for more than 100 years announced this week that it was closing its doors. Robert Lee Lackner founded R.L. Lackner Jewelers back in 1907. He came to the Rio Grande Valley to be near the railroads because he knew that railroad conductors and station managers needed the finest watches and timepieces in the business.

“Today,  his granddaughter and two of his great-granddaughters run the business and many of their best clients in recent years have been Mexican citizens who cross into this country to shop, but these days many Mexicans don’t make the trip anymore—it’s just too risky. And so Carolyn Lackner Baird and her family are going out of business.

“So whether you focus on manufacturing or retail or whether you get your information from the news media or from talking to business owners like many of you the story is the same. Cartel-related border violence is bad for Mexico, bad for the United States, and bad for business.

“Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has no clear strategy to improve the border business climate—or to improve security and promote prosperity for both the Mexican and American people.

“I certainly respect Secretary Napolitano, but today she defended the Administration’s record the same way she did when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. She used lots of statistics. She focused mostly on inputs rather than outcomes—in other words, the focus is on what Washington is spending and doing, rather than whether people in our border communities are seeing results. And despite a commitment to do more, there’s no real plan from President Obama or the Administration to meet the goal of a secure border.

“Don’t take my word for it. According to a report last month from the Government Accountability Office, more than 1,100 miles of our southwest border are not under operational control as defined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Nearly two-thirds of those miles are at the monitored level, the rest are low-level monitored. The agency admits that these two levels are "not acceptable" for border security and I agree.

“Last week General Burgess, who leads the Defense Intelligence Agency, had this to say about our porous border ‘...it is a national security concern, because if you can move drugs, if you can move people, you can move other things that are of concern to us as a nation.’ If you want to judge the Administration’s performance, listen to federal agents and officers on the ground.

According to a recent L.A. Times article, it’s becoming much tougher to recruit agents to deploy to Mexico to work with the Mexican government because there are shortfalls in staffing, Washington sends agents with limited fluency in Spanish, and folks are worried that U.S. federal agents are now becoming targets especially after ICE agent Jamie Zapata was killed near Mexico City last month.

It’s clear that President Obama really needs to take a more active interest in border security and give federal agencies and our Mexican partners a much clearer idea on what he believes the right strategy is for our border. What would a robust border security strategy look like? Here are a few suggestions.

“First, a good strategy should have an interagency approach. This is not a new idea. There are already dozens of taskforces along the southwest border – and many of them are doing great work, but we are not yet coordinating our intelligence and interdiction operations as well as we could.

“A good model is the Joint Interagency Task Force-South, which operates out of Key West. This command is responsible for coordinating drug interdiction efforts in the Caribbean and South America and many federal agencies as well as representatives of sovereign nations including Mexico are part of it.

“This model has already drawn the attention of the Department of Homeland Security. Last year they looked at ways to improve Border Security during their Bottom Up Review last year. They said this option should be considered and I couldn’t agree more.

“Second, a good strategy should be resourced appropriately. Secretary Napolitano says that the Obama Administration has devoted more resources to border security and in some ways, she’s right, but we are still not doing enough to support local law enforcement, develop better intelligence, and target organized crime networks.

“That’s why several of us in Congress have proposed legislation that would do more. For example, last year I introduced legislation that would have funded additional personnel in several federal agencies, additional equipment that can help protect our border including helicopters and Predator drones, improvements for taskforces and fusion centers that enhance interagency cooperation, and assistance to state and local law enforcement officers who operate within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. 

“And because commerce is so important, I introduced a bill that would have greatly improved our ports of entry by providing $6 billion in funding for port construction, infrastructure improvements, and staffing.

“Third, a good strategy should reflect input from stakeholders like all of you. Lots of groups are interested in border security and immigration reform, and I believe their views matter. So whenever someone meets with me or contacts my office, we give them a list of questions that any successful border security or credible immigration reform bill will have to answer.

“For example, are physical barriers an effective component of border security?  Or are new technologies not currently in use by DHS part of the solution? What’s the right balance between employment-based and family-based visas? What should we do with criminal aliens whose home countries refuse to take them back? More than a dozen organizations are helping us work through the answers to these questions, and I’d welcome the participation of the U.S. Mexico Chamber.

“There’s no question that we’ve got our work cut out for us. Cartel violence is exposing many of the gaps and holes in our nation’s border security. America’s broken immigration system isn’t serving the people who want to follow the law especially those who want to engage in legitimate trade and investment between our two countries. And neither the Mexican economy nor the U.S. economy is creating enough jobs for the people who want them, but I believe each of those problems is solvable.

“I envision a border in which commerce flows safely and swiftly across our border, and continues to grow, people are crossing legally, but not illegally and the cartels have been utterly defeated, and no longer threaten our communities and our children. I hope we can continue to discuss how to move our two nations closer to those goals.  And now I’d be happy to take a few questions.”