Two liberal U.S. senators have said they will vote 'yes' on the health care bill.

Washington (CNN) – Two liberal U.S. senators who had not committed to supporting the health care reform bill said Saturday they will vote "yes."

The holdouts were Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat.

Sanders said he will vote for approval because the measure now contains provisions for new community health centers. Brown said he favored the insurance reforms in the legislation.

Neither of the men are totally pleased, but they told CNN it's a good first step.

Full story

Washington (CNN) – The Senate passed the $636 billion defense spending bill on Saturday by an 88 to 10 vote, and the measure is now headed to President Obama for his signature.

The legislation includes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but does not include the additional costs expected for the 30,000 U.S. troops the Obama administration announced it will send to Afghanistan next year. A separate request for those troops is expected to come up for a vote next spring.

The House of Representatives passed the spending bill 395-34 on Wednesday.

Democrats also tacked onto the bill short-term extensions of several programs set to expire at the end of 2009, including a two-month extension of unemployment assistance and health care coverage for those who have lost their jobs.

Washington (CNN) – Partisan tensions exploded Friday as Republicans laced into Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's possible plan to unveil a revised Senate health care bill over the weekend and pass it before Christmas.

The self-imposed holiday deadline loomed large as Reid struggled to win the support of socially conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson and to unify his fractious 60-member caucus. If the minority Republicans remain solid in opposition, the backing of every member of the Democratic caucus will be required to end Senate debate and proceed to a vote on final passage.

Final Senate passage - potentially slated for Christmas Eve - would then require a simple majority of 51 votes.

Adding to Reid's complications is growing anger among liberal activists over compromises made to win the backing of more moderate Democrats. Congress is also waiting for a critical new cost analysis of the revised bill by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

"This massive piece of legislation that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy is being written behind closed doors without input from anyone in an effort to jam it past not only the Senate but the American people before Christmas - an artificial deadline," fumed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

"Every American will be affected by this missing bill. ... No one will have had an opportunity to read it and to understand it" before the vote.

The critical first vote to cut off debate could come as early as 1 a.m. on Monday, according to top Senate aides. The unusual timing is a consequence of Senate rules for legislative debate and Democrats' strong desire to pass the bill before adjourning for the year.

This "isn't change you can believe in," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. "There is no change. This is business as usual."

McCain complained that while "every single major reform bill that's been passed in the history of this country has been bipartisan ... there's no bipartisanship here. There's no negotiation. There's no conversation."

A key obstacle for Reid is Nelson, who on Thursday rejected compromise abortion language that had been inserted in the health care bill.

Nelson has said he cannot support the Senate bill without tighter restrictions on federal funding for abortion. The Senate last week defeated an amendment proposed by Nelson and two other senators that would have adopted the tougher language on abortion funding contained in the House health care bill.

The Senate bill as currently written would restrict government money from being used for abortions by segregating taxpayer funded subsides from the private money women pay for premiums.

The more rigid House bill, in contrast, would prevent insurance companies that receive any federal subsidies from offering abortion coverage.

Nelson has argued attempts in the Senate bill to keep private and public funds apart amount to little more than accounting tricks and don't live up to long-standing government practices that prevent federal funds from paying for abortions.

He has said a compromise on the abortion language is possible. He is currently working to find a solution with Sen. Bob Casey, a socially conservative Pennsylvania Democrat. But abortion rights opponents in Nebraska, with whom Nelson has been conferring, have called the attempts to find a middle ground on the issue this week "entirely unacceptable."

As Reid works to bring Nelson on board, he also needs to worry about keeping increasingly disaffected liberals in line.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean came out against the bill earlier in the week. Dean argued, among other things, that the bill had been effectively gutted by Reid's decision eliminate both a controversial government-run public health insurance option and a provision allowing 55- to 64-year-olds to buy into Medicare.

The move was necessary to win the support of moderates such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

On Thursday, two unions with significant influence in Democratic politics - the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union - issued statements criticizing the revised bill.

Neither union, however, indicated an intention to oppose the measure.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, one of the most liberal members of the chamber, indicated earlier in the week he was not sure he could back the bill.

"The final bill won't include everything that everybody wants. No bill can do that," President Barack Obama said Tuesday after meeting with Senate Democrats.

"(But) we simply cannot allow differences over individual elements of this plan to prevent us from meeting our responsibility to solve a long-standing and urgent problem for the American people."

Former President Bill Clinton released a statement Thursday urging congressional Democrats not "to let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

If the Senate eventually passes a health care bill, its version would have to be merged with the version the House of Representatives passed in November, which includes a public option. The final bill would then need approval from both chambers before going to Obama to be signed into law.

–CNN's Ted Barrett and Lisa Desjardins contributed to this report

Facing year-end holidays and running out of time to discuss health care reform, the Senate voted early Friday to end debate on funding for the Department of Defense.

Washington (CNN) – Facing year-end holidays and running out of time to discuss health care reform, the Senate voted early Friday to end debate on funding for the Department of Defense.

The motion passed 63 to 33, gaining the necessary 60 percent majority and setting up a final vote on the $636 billion package for Saturday.

The House of Representatives passed the spending bill 395 to 34 on Wednesday. The measure includes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but does not include the additional costs expected for the 30,000 U.S. troops the Obama administration announced it will send to Afghanistan next year. A separate request for those troops is expected to come up for a vote next spring.

The defense bill is the last spending measure of the year for both chambers of Congress.

The end of debate on defense spending means the Senate can resume its discussions on health care reform. The body is deeply divided on the issue, making it difficult for Senate leadership to find a consensus.

Those tensions were palpable on the Senate floor early Friday, with Democrats suggesting their Republican counterparts were sacrificing the defense of the nation to stall health care reform.

"Many who are filibustering this defense appropriations bill tonight are filibustering because they want to delay ... the health care reform legislation from being voted on," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.

"So the bill that provides the funding to support our men and women in uniform who are serving on the front lines, often under arduous and dangerous circumstances, to protect our nation is being filibustered to keep the Senate from acting on another unrelated piece of legislation. This is not only unbelievable; it is unconscionable."

But Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl was having none of it.

"Don't blame Republicans for the fact that this bill comes before us a week before Christmas and, therefore, we have to act on it at this point in time. Republicans had nothing to do with that timing," he said.

If the Senate eventually passes a health care bill, its version would have to be merged with the version the House of Representatives passed in November, which includes a public health insurance plan. The final bill would then need approval from both chambers before going to Obama to be signed into law.

Obama and Democratic leaders have said they want the bill completed this year. The Senate would need to finish its work this week to leave a realistic chance of meeting that schedule.

Washington (CNN) – Democrats in Congress, already worried about their dim prospects in the 2010 midterm elections, have been thrown in a tizzy about something else that could reduce their majority: retirements.

They are four departures down and worried about more members leaving districts that have grown more competitive. And they're right to be concerned: Districts without any incumbent running often wind up switching to the other party.

But there's much more to worry about. Consider the results of a recent "open seat" special election for the state senate in a Democratic district in rural eastern Kentucky: Republican Jimmy Higdon beat the Democrat Jodie Haydon by tying him to, of all things, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.

"Congress is out of control," one effective ad intoned, "and [Haydon] will bring Nancy Pelosi's one-party control of government to Frankfurt."

Full Story

Washington (CNN) – With a holiday break looming in its sights, the House of Representatives Wednesday rushed to wrap up year end business, and postponed several major battles until next year.

With an overwhelming vote, 395-34, The House passed the spending bill for the Department of Defense. The $636 billion measure includes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but does not include the additional costs expected for the 30,000 U.S. troops the Obama administration has announced it will send to Afghanistan next year. A separate request for those troops is expected to come up for a vote next spring.

Democrats also tacked on to the defense bill short-term extensions of several programs set to expire at the end of 2009, including a two-month extension of unemployment assistance and health care coverage for those who have lost their jobs. House Democrats wanted to include a six-month continuation of these items, but were forced to scale back because Senate Democratic leaders made it clear they would not be able pass a longer extension this year.

Because the defense bill is the last spending measure both chambers of Congress will vote on this year, Democratic leaders also attached several other short-term extensions for programs they were unable to tackle by year's end. In order to head off a major cut in payments to doctors, the bill keeps in place the current rates Medicare pays to physicians for two more months. The temporary "doc fix" punts the debate over how to pay for a permanent fix for these rates until next year.

The bill also extends some key provisions of the Patriot Act for two months.

The House also voted to raise the level of the nation's "debt ceiling" by $290 billion. This allows the Treasury Department to continuing borrowing money for the next two months. House Democratic leaders wanted to increase the level by as much as $1.9 trillion, to allow borrowing through the end of 2010 and allow lawmakers to avoid voting on the politically-charged issue of deficit spending during an election year. But Democratic leaders could not reach agreement with fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate who wanted to add to the debt limit bill tough measures to rein in spending, so leaders opted to pass a two-month bill.

Finally, the House is expected to vote Wednesday on a $154 billion jobs package. The bill taps $75 billion of bank bailout funds from the Treasury to pay for more infrastructure projects and assistance for cash-strapped states. About $48 billion of the so-called TARP funds would pay for highway construction projects, high speed rail, water projects, and school construction. Another $27 billion would go to state and local governments to cover salaries for police, fire fighters and teachers who could face lay offs next year.

The jobs bill also includes $79 billion in "emergency relief" that House Democrats argued did not need to be paid for because it focuses on economic recovery. The spending includes a six-month extension of unemployment insurance, health care subsidies for those who are out of work, some Medicaid money for states and an extension of the child care tax credit.

The Senate is not expected to take up a jobs package until next year.

Washington (CNN) – The U.S. Senate on Sunday approved $447 billion in spending for several Cabinet departments and other agencies for the 2010 budget year - money needed to fund the federal government after the coming week.

On a mostly partisan vote of 57-35, the Senate approved the compromise omnibus spending plan worked out with the House, which passed it last week. The measure now goes to President Barack Obama to be signed into law to succeed the previous funding resolution that expires December 18.

The vote occurred in an unusual Sunday session as the Senate worked for the second consecutive weekend in a push by the Democratic leadership to complete work on a sweeping health care bill and also get the appropriations bill passed.

Full story

Sen. Thune criticized the White House and congressional Democrats for their spending and also acknowledged that Republicans share some of the blame for excessive spending and borrowing in the past.

Washington (CNN) – On the same day that the Senate is expected to vote on a massive spending bill, a Republican senator says the best approach to getting the federal government’s finances in order is to begin reducing spending.

“You’ve got to start there,” Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“Republicans share some of the blame,” Thune told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “When we were in charge [of Congress and the White House] we didn’t control spending well enough either.”

But Thune added that Republicans in the last eight years looked like cheapskates compared to the spending going on under Democrats now.

Democrats “have their foot on the pedal,” Thune said Sunday. “I mean this thing is – they’re driving this thing over a cliff and somebody’s got to put the brakes on.”

“We can’t continue to borrow and spend at this rate,” added Thune.

The Senate is prepared to vote Sunday on a massive spending bill.

Washington (CNN) – The U.S. Senate is prepared to vote Sunday on a massive spending bill that funds several Cabinet departments and other agencies for the 2010 budget year - money needed to fund the federal government after next week.

On Saturday, the Democratic-controlled Senate cleared a procedural vote needed to end a Republican filibuster and allow for Sunday's vote to take place. The vote was 60-34. Sixty votes of approval were the minimum needed to move the bill to the Senate floor.

The omnibus bill, which combines six separate appropriations measures, would provide $447 billion for non-defense, government agencies.

Those include the departments of Transportation, State Department, Veterans Affairs, Commerce and Justice for the fiscal year that started October 1.

A separate defense spending bill is expected to be considered next week.

The omnibus measure, which the House of Representatives passed Thursday, also authorizes about $600 billion in mandatory federal spending on government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, funding that is set by formula and cannot be altered by Congress.

Republicans denounced the bill as bloated with wasteful spending.

According to the independent, nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, the spending bill includes 5,244 earmarks - or pet projects sought by members of Congress - that total just under $4 billion.

Among its many provisions, the bill would allow the government to transfer suspected terrorists now held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States to stand trial, and allow guns in checked luggage on Amtrak trains.

It also would provide auto dealers closed down under the General Motors and Chrysler restructuring an opportunity to be reinstated. The bill sets up a binding arbitration process that would let dealers present evidence that could allow them to reopen.

Senate Democrats kept Saturday's vote open for over an hour waiting for two tardy senators to cast the decisive 59th and 60th votes needed for passage of the procedural motion.

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, 92, of West Virginia, arrived on the floor in a wheelchair at about the 50-minute mark to cast his aye vote. Several minutes later, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, arrived.

As an Orthodox Jew, Lieberman won't drive on the Sabbath. He lives in Georgetown and walked - wearing a heavy overcoat and bright orange scarf - to cast his vote.

Neither senator was available after the vote to explain exactly why he was so late.

–CNN's Shirley Hung and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Rep. Barney Frank has shepherded the regulatory reform package along.

Washington (CNNMoney.com) – The House passed legislation Friday aimed at preventing the next big financial crisis, ushering in the most sweeping set of changes to the banking regulatory system since the New Deal.

The bill, which passed 223-202, imposes more oversight and stronger capital cushions for the largest banks and Wall Street firms. It forces them to pay a total of as much as $150 billion into an emergency fund that could be tapped when a troubled firm needs to be taken over and broken up.

The legislation also calls for the regulation of some derivatives and creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate products such as credit cards and mortgages.

"The bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns would be not possible - made illegal - under this bill," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Committee, said Wednesday as debate started on the bill. "If a company fails, it'll be put to death."

The House rejected, by 223-208, an amendment that would have effectively killed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, replacing it with a council of existing regulators.

Full Story:

TOPICS: Democrats and Republicans in Congress, health care

Full results (pdf)

A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a congressional gold medal.

Washington (CNN) – A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a Congressional Gold Medal.

In March of this year, Rep. Joe Baca, D-California, introduced a resolution calling for Woods to receive the high congressional honor.

The award was justified, Baca's bill said, because, among other things, "Woods has broken barriers with grace and dignity by showing that golf is a sport for all people, regardless of race, color, or creed... Woods has inspired countless people of all ages, impressing upon them that their hopes, dreams, and prayers may be achieved through hard work, persistence, education, and good sportsmanship."

Baca announced Wednesday that he has had a change of heart about honoring Woods.

"In light of the recent developments surrounding Tiger Woods and his family, I will not pursue legislation awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal this session," the congressman said in a statement.

Baca's announcement comes amid reports that television ads featuring the embattled golfer have not aired since November 29.

A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a congressional gold medal.

Washington (CNN) – A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a Congressional Gold Medal.

In March of this year, Rep. Joe Baca, D-California, introduced a resolution calling for Woods to receive the high congressional honor.

The award was justified, Baca's bill said, because, among other things, "Woods has broken barriers with grace and dignity by showing that golf is a sport for all people, regardless of race, color, or creed... Woods has inspired countless people of all ages, impressing upon them that their hopes, dreams, and prayers may be achieved through hard work, persistence, education, and good sportsmanship."

Baca announced Wednesday that he has had a change of heart about honoring Woods.

"In light of the recent developments surrounding Tiger Woods and his family, I will not pursue legislation awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal this session," the congressman said in a statement.

Baca's announcement comes amid reports that television ads featuring the embattled golfer have not aired since November 29.

Congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, met Wednesday at the White House with the president.

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama called Wednesday for Republicans to work with his administration and Democrats in Congress on winding down the federal economic bailout program and creating jobs.

In a brief White House statement after meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, Obama said changing economic conditions since he took office called for new efforts to stimulate job growth.

Acknowledging "less than full bipartisan support" for his stimulus package and other steps "that have broken the free-fall of our economy," Obama said he hoped "we can move forward together."

One step would be ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) from the previous administration that bailed out U.S. banks and automakers in danger of collapsing in the recession, Obama said.

"This program has served its original purpose and the cost has been lower than expected," the president said, adding that the savings would help pay down the federal deficit and invest in job creation.

Obama said he would work with congressional leaders from both parties on "how we can structure a plausible scenario to get to medium- and long-term debt reduction," saying such issues were neither Republican nor Democratic.

"I'm absolutely committed to working with anybody who is willing to do the job to make sure we can rebuild our economy," Obama said.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the top Republican in the Senate, attended the meeting with Obama but signaled continued GOP resistance to the president's agenda, especially sweeping proposals such as health care reform and cap-and-trade energy legislation.

"We're willing to talk about some kind of job-creating measure, but the best thing we could do to get this economy rolling again would be to stop these measures from becoming law," McConnell said.

Such GOP intransigence sometimes bothers Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told his daily news briefing.

"Has the president been frustrated about this? Absolutely," Gibbs said, citing a lack of Republican support for the stimulus package and other steps that helped prevent "another Great Depression."

Now, Gibbs said, Obama was proposing job creation measures previously advocated by Republicans, such as increased investment in infrastructure development, cutting taxes for small businesses and helping them get access to capital.

"But, again, if the president outlines ideas that the Republicans have previously supported, and then Republicans seem unwilling to support the ideas they (previously) supported ..., you can leave it up to others to judge why it is they don't want to participate in a solution that we all agree and we've said in the past would put people back to work," Gibbs said.

Washington (CNN) - Mortgage company executives and government officials faced an angry congressional committee Tuesday concerning some of the problems with the administration's mortgage aid program aimed at avoiding foreclosures. Many of the complaints lodged by members of the House Financial Services Committee focused on the slow pace of converting trial mortgage modifications into permanent ones under the program.

While over 680,000 borrowers now have temporary adjustments which last for several months, only a small fraction of those people have been offered new permanent mortgages.

"We are terribly frustrated," Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) told the hearing.

"Why can't we do so something...I am frustrated," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Missouri) said.

In an attempt to dramatically raise the number of homeowners whose mortgages are permanently revised, the government last week announced new steps to pressure companies, including such steps as sending Treasury Department and Fannie Mae personnel to the largest 7 mortgage servicers to personally make sure applications are being processed efficiently; giving the companies specific targets and publishing more detailed information about the institutions' conversion rates.

"I think the banks have a long way to go to get up to their full potential," Assistant Treasury Secretary Herb Allison told the committee, adding the institutions recently made progress towards more conversions. "Lights need to be shine on each of these banks."

Those eligible for the $75 billion Making Home Affordable program are people who occupy the home as their primary residence; have a loan balance less than $729,750 and have a mortgage payment greater than 31 percent of their gross monthly income. Once the participants are deemed eligible they enter into the trial modification phase in which their payments are lowered and under which the customer has to make at least 3 payments. If everything goes well in that preliminary stage and their financial situation hasn't changed, their applications are evaluated for the permanent modification.

A preliminary report shows as of September 1, only 1,711 or 1.26 percent of all trial adjustments were made permanent after 3 months, according to the Congressional Oversight Panel, which is monitoring the government bailout programs.

Some members of Congress said more pressure needs to be applied.

"The banks thumb their noses at all of us," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) said.

In an effort to push the companies to put more eligible homeowners into permanent modifications, Treasury Department officials on Monday met in Washington with the 17 mortgage providers, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, CitiMortgage and Wells Fargo.

"Permanent modification numbers will be released on Thursday, so servicers are on notice that they must ramp up and provide sustained relief to struggling homeowners now," Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr said in a statement.

Failure to send in needed paperwork is a major problem the banks and the government are both trying to solve. A Treasury Department official has said only a third of those homeowners who made at least three trial payments have submitted all necessary documents.

Two companies who testified Tuesday said they want the program to work, have added staff to help improve processing and are increasing outreach to customers.

"We fully share Treasury's commitment to convert successful trial modifications to permanent as quickly as possible. In support of that commitment Bank of America is focusing on assisting customers in providing all of the necessary documents for underwriting. Otherwise homeowners are at risk of missing this opportunity...an outcome none of us wants," Jack Schakett of Bank of America told the committee. For example, he said just last week it sent out by overnight mail another request to 50,000 people who face a Dec. 31 deadline and who have failed to submit key documents.

At the hearing Molly Sheehan, senior vice president for JPMorgan Chase, explained some of the efforts it has undertaken especially for the 51percent of borrowers who are paying but have not submitted all of their documents: "A coordinated program to call our customers 36 times, reach out by mail 15 times, and make at least 2 home visits if necessary to help complete documents, ordering key documents earlier in the process so they are ready when the borrower's documents come in to expedite underwriting...assigning specific pools of accounts to loan modification counselors to provide continuity in dealing with the customer."

The vice president looked on as the president spoke about jobs Thursday.

(CNN) – President Obama called on business leaders Thursday to help the administration kickstart hiring as policymakers contend with rising unemployment that’s weighing down the economy.

Some 130 executives, economists, small business owners and non-profit officials are gathering for the afternoon jobs summit at the White House on the eve of the government's November unemployment report. The nation is expected to have lost another 114,000 jobs, with unemployment remaining at 10.2%, the highest in 26 years, according to an economists' survey.

"I'm not interested in taking a wait and see approach when it comes to creating jobs," Obama said.

The employment picture is certainly grim. Nearly 16 million Americans are out of work, one-third of whom have been unemployed for more than six months. There are now six workers competing for every job vacancy.

President Obama and some lawmakers are searching for a way to stem this unrelenting loss of jobs, which is casting doubt on effectiveness of many of his economic programs, from his $787 billion stimulus plan to his $75 billion foreclosure prevention initiative.

Just how much Washington can do to boost hiring remains to be seen.

Full story

Most Republicans backed the president's decision to send more troops.

They claimed, however, he was playing politics by setting an "arbitrary" withdrawal deadline while insisting that any transfer of responsibility to the Afghan government will ultimately be based on conditions in that country.

They also argued he had inadvertently strengthened the hand of Taliban and al Qaeda extremists by allowing them to know when a U.S. departure from the war-torn country would begin.

Several members of the Democratic caucus, on the other hand, expressed unease with the president's decision to send thousands of additional troops over the next several months. They questioned whether the war is winnable.

Obama's blueprint was closely examined during appearances before two key committees by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I disagree with the president's decision to personally relay to our enemies when they can regroup and when they can retake Afghan territory," said Florida GOP Rep. Connie Mack, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"I simply cannot understand and cannot agree with this approach." Obama's decision "emboldens our enemies (and) allows them to prepare and plan."

Announcing a firm date for starting an American withdrawal while also saying such a withdrawal depends on conditions in Afghanistan "are two incompatible statements," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona , the Senate Armed Services Committee's ranking Republican.

"You either have a winning strategy ... and then once it's succeeded then we withdraw or, as the president said, we will have a date (for) beginning withdrawal in July 2011," he said. "Which is it? It's got to be one or the other. It's got to be the appropriate conditions or it's got to be an arbitrary date. You can't have both."

Gates noted that the administration will conduct "a thorough review" of the Afghan strategy in December of 2010.

"If it appears that the strategy's not working, and that we are not going to be able to transition in 2011, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself," he said.

"The president always has the freedom to adjust his decisions," Gates added. But he has made "a clear statement of his strong intent."

Obama's new deployment, estimated to cost $30 billion a year, will bring the total number of U.S. service members in Afghanistan to roughly 100,000.

NATO allies are expected to add at least another 5,000 troops to the more than 40,000 they have already contributed to the U.S.-led mission.

The new strategy is designed to eliminate al Qaeda in Afghanistan and help the Afghan government defeat the Taliban insurgency, while bolstering neighboring Pakistan's anti-terrorism efforts.

"The success of this operation depends on will and resolve," argued GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "I just don't want the July 2011 statement to be seen by our enemy (to mean) that we have somehow locked ourselves into leaving."

Clinton replied that she does "not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving, but what we have done ... is to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan."

The Afghan people, Mullen noted, ultimately have to win the war by themselves. The U.S. military buildup is "about partnering and mentoring just as much if not more than it is about fighting."

The administration is not "going to throw these guys into the swimming pool and then walk away," Gates said in reference to Afghan military and civilian authorities. But it's important to establish a timeline in part to "build a fire under them, frankly, to get them to do the kind of recruitment, retention, training and so on for their forces that allow us to make this transition."

Gates and Mullen noted that the Afghan military is slated to increase from 134,000 troops in December 2010 to 170,000 by July 2011.

They also indicated that the initial transfers of responsibility will take place in areas marked by less fighting.

The administration's "timeline is clear," Mullen argued. The flexibility "is in where we transition (and) where we turn over responsibility."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed GOP claims that the Taliban and al Qaeda could simply wait out the surge and return after the start of a U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

"I consider (it) to be a highly illogical argument (that) these people are going to recede into the woods, they're going to give up their land, they're going to give up what they control," he said.

"If that's the case, great. That would be the best outcome, because American forces would then take that real estate. ... If (the extremists) want to come back in July 2011 and start this process over again, they'll meet a far larger Afghan national security force to take them on."

Some Democrats, however, questioned the necessity of continuing the conflict.

"I'm really struggling with this," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York. "I'm trying to think this thing through."

Ackerman said he understood the need to prevent an extremist takeover of neighboring Pakistan - a nuclear power - but asked if that required an extended war in Afghanistan.

"I think the best I come up with is that we have a shack that's on fire, but it's located next to the dynamite factory," he said. "Is it worth risking the lives of those who respond to the fire in a place that may or may not hold a lot of value in and of itself?"

"We've been there eight years now and we're still talking about turning it around," said Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Massachusetts. "Is (another) 18 months going to be sufficient?"

Rep. Donald Payne, D-New Jersey, blamed a recent Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan on neglect by the Bush administration since the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003. As a result, he argued, Obama was left with no good choices in Afghanistan.

"I don't like the increase in troops. I don't think we can win a war in Afghanistan," he said. "We have to quickly transition into having the Afghans take care of themselves."

The top House Democrat on the committee that controls war spending told reporters he remains skeptical despite Obama's speech and will try to attach benchmarks to a war funding bill he expects Congress to consider next year.

"The president was very persuasive, but I'm looking for facts," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Murtha questioned if the situation in Afghanistan is a threat to U.S. national security and said: "I'm looking for how we can live with this thing. We've got plenty of problems here in the United States."

Murtha and other leading House Democrats have proposed an income tax surcharge on most Americans to finance the war in Afghanistan, but he acknowledged the proposal is unlikely to pass.

U.S.-led troops first invaded Afghanistan in response to the al Qaeda terrorist network's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. The invasion overthrew the ruling Taliban, which had allowed al Qaeda to operate from its territory, but most of the top al Qaeda and Taliban leadership escaped the onslaught.

Taliban fighters have since regrouped in the mountainous region along
Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, battling U.S. and Afghan government forces on one side and Pakistani troops on the other. Al Qaeda's top leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are believed to be hiding in the same region.

"A stable security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, one that is sustainable over the long term by their governments, is vital to our national security," Gates stressed.

"By the same token, the current status quo in Afghanistan - the slow but steady deterioration of the security situation and growing influence of the Taliban - is unacceptable."

–CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

Washington (CNN) - When Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas announced last week that he would retire after next year rather than run for re-election, political analysts wondered if the move by the six term congressman would spark other retirements by fellow Democrats.

Eight days later, Rep. John Tanner, another centrist, is joining Moore. Tanner put out a statement saying he'll retire at the close of the 111th Congress. Tanner, who's represented Tennessee's 8th congressional district for 11 terms, is a founding member of the so-called "Blue Dogs," a group of House Democrats who promote centrist policies.

While Tanner ran unopposed in his last two re-election victories, John McCain won the district by 13 points in last year's presidential contest. But 14 of the 20 state lawmakers in the district are Democrats. The district is located in the northwest portion of Tennessee and includes Jackson.

Will Tanner's retirement present the GOP with an opportunity?

"With $1.4 million in the bank, John Tanner opted for retirement rather than be forced to defend the abysmal economic policies of the Obama-Pelosi agenda," Ken Spain, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director, tells CNN. "When a longtime incumbent such as Tanner – who hasn't faced a credible challenge in over decade – chooses to retire, it speaks to the deteriorating political environment that Democrats have left in their wake after eleven short months."

But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is optimistic his party can keep the seat.

"We are confident that a Democrat who shares Congressman John Tanner's determination to bringing bipartisan, commonsense solutions for Tennessee's families will succeed him as the next Representative of Tennessee's 8th District," says Van Hollen in a statement.

Amy Walter, Editor-in-Chief of the Hotline, says Tanner's retirement carries a lot of weight: "As the longtime leader of the Blue Dogs, and someone who's gone from majority to minority and back in his 21 years in Congress, many would take his decision as a signal that moderates were in a heap of trouble in 2010. If a guy like that is leaving, the thinking would go, how can a freshman or sophomore in a similar district have any hope of hanging on?"

Next November, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, where the Democrats hold an 258-177 advantage, are up for grabs. After winning back Congress in the 2006 contests and increasing their majorities in the 2008 elections, the Democrats will be playing a lot of defense next year. The GOP needs to win 41 seats back from the Democrats to take control of the House.

Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @psteinhausercnn

Washington (CNN) - Tennessee Democratic Rep. John Tanner, a leading centrist voice in the House, will retire at the close of the 111th Congress.

Tanner is a founding member of the so-called "Blue Dogs," a group of House Democrats who promote centrist policies.

See full statement after the jump

Statement released by Tanner's office:

"Other than wearing the military uniform of my country, I can think of no higher privilege than serving in public office with the consent of free men and women. Betty Ann and I have been honored and humbled by the support granted us through the years. The many kindnesses and friendships extended to us are something we cherish and for which we will be forever grateful.

"When we were first elected to Congress some 21 years ago, I agreed, as I do now, with our predecessor, Ed Jones, that 20 years was an appropriate amount of time to serve, with the voters' consent.

"Betty Ann and I had considered retiring in 2007 at the end of the 110th Congress, were it not for the fact that our nation had the chance to elect an American as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at this critical moment in the war in Afghanistan. However, we believed we owed it to our country to stay and fulfill this term of office as NATO PA President. This mandate expires in November 2010, and therefore, we have made the decision not to seek re-election to Congress.

"No one could have asked for a more dedicated staff to help countless thousands of our constituents. Long hours, nights and weekends are not uncommon in our offices. We look forward to continuing this service to the 8th District next year through the end of the 111th Congress.

"Our nation faces many severe and unrelenting problems. I will stay active on these matters and continue my efforts with the Blue Dogs and others of good will to help our citizens come together for the future of our children and grandchildren.

"No road in public life is travelled alone. Betty Ann and our children have sacrificed much over these years, and for them and for me, we say a simple and heartfelt 'thank you.' It has truly been our friends and supporters who have made this journey possible."

Follow Mark Preston on Twitter: @prestoncnn

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama's decision to send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan met with a mixed reaction among Capitol Hill Democrats Tuesday. Leading Republicans backed the additional deployments, but questioned the creation of a three-year withdrawal timetable.

The sharp disagreement among members of Obama's own party indicates potential political trouble for the president as he tries to rally the country around his decision to expand American involvement in the eight-year conflict.

Obama is slated to announce the new troop deployments - along with the three-year withdrawal plan - in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, on Tuesday night.

(Read reactions from selected members of Congress after the jump)

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin:
"I am not in favor of what I have heard so far. ... Fundamentally I think increasing troops is not the answer, and I will be actively opposing it. I am confused why we would spend three years taking enormous loss and enormous cost in Afghanistan where we have other priorities that are greater."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont (caucuses with Democrats):
"It's a reaction of disappointment. This country is in the midst of a severe recession. We need to invest in our young people. We need to invest in infrastructure. We need to invest in sustainable energy. ... This is an international issue. This is not just an American issue. Where is Europe? Where is Russia? Where is China? Are they just sitting around and saying we don't have to do anything because Uncle Sam is going to pay the bills?"

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri:
"I'm hopeful this president has taken the time and made the effort to think through whatever mission we will have over there. How we will accomplish it within a reasonable timeframe with some kind of certainty to the American people. The surge came about in Iraq because this kind of deliberative thought never occurred in the Bush administration as it related to (the) conflict in Iraq."

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana:
"I generally support (Obama's plan) but I have two concerns. One, that we find a way to pay for this, not just charge it to our children and grandchildren. Secondly, I want to know more about the increase of troops and resources because I'm not convinced we can ultimately defeat the Taliban with military might alone. ... I want to support increased muscle but that muscle has to be attached to increased hope and opportunity and economic support."

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania:
"We have to be very thoughtful about this. We have to get it right. The stakes are higher than they were in Iraq. It's going to take a lot of work in both parties. ... Just as the president engaged in a multi-week review, I think the Congress needs to do the same as well. ... We have to get it right, and if that means there's a division (then) there's a division."

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California:
"Expanding our military footprint in Afghanistan is a mistake. A larger occupation gives the Taliban an enhanced recruiting tool, continues the dependency of Afghan fighters on our superior training and logistics, and commits scarce U.S. resources ... at a time when other counterterrorism challenges - including inside the United States - appear more urgent."

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland:
"Across the spectrum (the Democratic) caucus is concerned about the failure to succeed in Afghanistan. ... There is significant concern about whether or not we can be successful. ... It is a free-world responsibility, and the free world ought to participate in a proportional way."

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:
Obama is "finally doing the right thing. ... (But) announcing a withdrawal date is a little bit like telling people you're going to play the first three quarters of a football game and then you're going to take the first team off the field. I think those decisions need to be made by the commanders on the ground."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona:
"Certainly I support the (additional 30,000 troops) but I am very concerned about whether there is a date certain for withdrawal. Success is what causes us to withdraw. You don't want to tell the enemy you're coming and you're leaving."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia:
"I am on board with giving Gen. McChrystal exactly what he asked for in terms of more troops." But "I have no idea" what (Obama's thinking is) in establishing a three-year withdrawal timetable. "It's pretty obvious where we're going to be three years from now. We'll be in the middle of another election."

–CNN's Ted Barrett, Dana Bash, Craig Broffman, Lisa Desjardins and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Congress calls for party crashers to testify.

Washington (CNN) - The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called Monday for the couple who crashed President Obama's state dinner last week and the head of Secret Service to testify at a Thursday hearing on the security breakdown at the White House event.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee chairman, announced that he wants to hear Tareq and Michaele Salahi, and Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, explain how the couple was able to get inside the White House and shake hands with President Obama without being on the guest list.

"This is a time for answers, recognition of security deficiencies past and present, and remedies to ensure the strength of the Secret Service and the safety of those under its protection," Thompson said in a statement. "This is not the time for political games or scapegoating to distract our attention from the careful oversight we must apply to the Secret Service and its mission. My confidence in the management of the Secret Service hangs in the balance." He called the incident a "slap in the face" to other Secret Service employees.

Internal investigations have indicated that the Secret Service didn't follow protocol at at least one security checkpoint.

UPDATE: The House Homeland Security Committee has also invited White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to be a witness at their Thursday hearing at the request of committee Republicans. Rogers has yet to respond to the invitation.

Congress calls for party crashers to testify.

Washington (CNN) - The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called Monday for the couple who crashed President Obama's state dinner last week and the head of Secret Service to testify at a Thursday hearing on the security breakdown at the White House event.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee chairman, announced that he wants to hear Tareq and Michaele Salahi, and Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, explain how the couple was able to get inside the White House and shake hands with President Obama without being on the guest list.

"This is a time for answers, recognition of security deficiencies past and present, and remedies to ensure the strength of the Secret Service and the safety of those under its protection," Thompson said in a statement. "This is not the time for political games or scapegoating to distract our attention from the careful oversight we must apply to the Secret Service and its mission. My confidence in the management of the Secret Service hangs in the balance." He called the incident a "slap in the face" to other Secret Service employees.

Internal investigations have indicated that the Secret Service didn't follow protocol at at least one security checkpoint.

Washington (CNN) – President Obama has invited bipartisan bicameral congressional leaders, key committee chairs, and ranking Republicans to come to a meeting on Afghanistan next Tuesday afternoon, according to several congressional aides.

Washington (CNN) - In the battle for Congress, 41 is the crucial number. That's the number of seats the Republicans need to win back from the Democrats in next year's midterm elections to take control of the House of Representatives.

Next November, all 435 seats in the House, where Democrats hold an 258-177 advantage, are up for grabs. After winning back Congress in the 2006 contests and increasing their majorities in the 2008 elections, the Democrats will be playing defense next year. Making matters tougher for the Democrats, the country's political landscape has changed this year, mostly to the benefit of Republicans. But will it be enough to get them to 41?

"President Barack Obama's standing has weakened, Democrats are on the defensive on the economy, spending and health care, and key midterm voting groups, including seniors and Independents, are moving away from the Democrats and toward the GOP," says Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report.

Of the 39 House Democrats who earlier this month voted against their party's health care reform bill, 31 come from districts that Sen. John McCain won in last year's presidential election. Of the remaining eight, six come from districts in which Obama won less than 55 percent of the vote.

Full Story:

Thune: Stop TARP before more damage is done.

(CNN) – For the federal government, this has been the year of spending dangerously.

The danger lies not just in the staggering volume of money being thrown around by the administration and Democrat-controlled Congress. It lies as well in their choices about how that money is being used and their apparent lack of concern that their spending splurge is unsustainable.

Just this past fiscal year alone, which ended in October, the federal government has racked up a staggering deficit of $1.4 trillion, tripling the previous record. And it has done so in part through moves like buying an ownership stake in hundreds of banks, an insurance company, two automakers and numerous other businesses.

A little over a year ago, Congress created the Troubled Asset Relief Program to try to stabilize plummeting financial markets

Full Story

Sen. Thune talks to CNN Radio’s Bob Costantini:

The new Web site for the House Democratic Caucus.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The House Democratic Caucus re-launched their Web site late last week, aiming for a more Facebook-esque feel. While the site is still in beta, CNN got the first look at Dems.gov and some of its new features.

In the past, one could look up individual representatives' Web sites, which are not always well-designed, or view the House Clerk's Web site, which is clunky with bill numbers and legislative jargon.

The Democrats are focused on making the site more user-friendly, with the center of the page designed to emulate the Facebook news feed. Caucus updates appear in a linear fashion and below are the representatives’ headshots along with excerpts from their latest press releases, linking to their personal sites.

Another feature includes a Google Map, making it easy for users to find Democratic representatives and access their home pages, their YouTube page and their Facebook Page.

On the other side of the aisle, the Republican site GOP.gov claims its unique features include a dynamic blog, a prominent RSS feed and a larger number of social media outlets including Flickr and even an iTunes account.

The Democratic Caucus is looking for feedback on the new site. Following in the WhiteHouse.gov footsteps, Dems.gov was built using an open source content management system, which allows the worldwide community of programmers to view code and makes it easy to improve the site based on user feedback.

Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats broke a GOP filibuster Tuesday against a district judge first nominated eight months ago by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court.

The Senate voted 70-29 to end debate over the nomination of Indiana Judge David Hamilton, who was tapped by Obama in March to fill a vacancy on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton was Obama's first judicial nominee.

The full Senate is now expected to move forward quickly on a final vote on the nomination.

Hamilton's nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. Leading Republicans, however, then spent weeks preventing a final vote, arguing that Hamilton is too liberal.

Congressional Democrats have expressed growing unease over what they argue is a slow pace of both judicial nominations and confirmations since Obama took office.

–CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report

TOPICS: Health care, Obama approval rating, 2010 midterm election

Full results (pdf)

The Senate has witnessed divisive debates over the course of history.

Washington (CNN) - The Senate is about to embark on what could be the showdown of the year as top Democrats work to push through sweeping health care legislation.

The legislative chamber, however, is no stranger to history-changing debate. Lawmakers need to look no further than their predecessors to see how it's done.

Full story

Follow Ed Hornick on Twitter: @HornickCNN

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (CNN) - Former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson is scheduled to be sentenced in federal court Friday for his conviction last summer on 11 counts of corruption.

He faces a sentence of up to 150 years in prison, but the judge may accept sentencing guidelines that range from 27 to 33 years. Prosecutors and Jefferson's defense attorney have filed arguments they hope will influence the judge's decision.

The case has included allegations of influence-peddling and the discovery of $90,000 in cash in Jefferson's freezer.

Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who served 18 years in Congress representing the New Orleans area, already faces the forfeiture of nearly half a million dollars - money a jury said is linked to criminal activity for which he stands convicted.

The jury August 5 found Jefferson guilty on four bribery counts, three counts of money laundering, three counts of wire fraud and one count of racketeering. He was acquitted on five other counts including wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

He has remained free pending Friday's sentencing and was granted his request, after the jury's verdict, to take a long drive back to his Louisiana home.

Jefferson was indicted by a federal grand jury on June 4, 2007, about two years after federal agents said they found the money in his freezer.
Authorities said the cash was part of a payment in marked bills from an FBI informant in a transaction captured on video.

The start of the trial was delayed to resolve whether an FBI search of Jefferson's congressional office was constitutional.

Defense attorney Robert Trout has asked the judge for leniency, citing Jefferson's personal history of humble beginnings and long-standing public service.

But prosecutors filed a response saying Jefferson deserves no preferential treatment, since he "still chose to cheat, steal and lie."

"Congressman Jefferson has still not accepted responsibility for his own criminal conduct," prosecutors wrote, and that he "still rationalizes his own unethical, illegal and immoral conduct."

ACORN leader Bertha Lewis defended her group at a press conference in Washington last month.

(CNN) – The embattled community organizing group ACORN filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a law passed by Congress that denies it federal funding.

Related: Liberal Dem blasts ACORN

The congressional appropriations resolution specifically provides that no federal dollars be provided to ACORN "or any of ACORN's affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations."

In a release announcing the suit, an attorney for ACORN said Congress had overstepped its authority in singling out the organization for denial of federal funding.

"It's not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner," Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in the statement. "We have due process in this country, and our Constitution forbids lawmakers from singling out a person or group for punishment without a fair investigation and trial. Congress, as well as individuals and organizations must abide by the rule of law."

ACORN's lawsuit alleges that Congress' action is unconstitutional and seeks a court order prohibiting the federal government enforcing or complying with the congressional resolution.

The community organizing group came under increasing scrutiny in recent months after the release of videos produced by two conservative activists. The conservative filmmakers, posing as a pimp and a prostitute, sought advice from ACORN employees on setting up a brothel with underage girls from El Salvador. The activists recorded the videos in Baltimore and three other cities. The tapes show ACORN employees suggesting or condoning a series of illicit actions.

Related: ACORN sues filmmakers

The release of the videos caused federal agencies including the Census Bureau to reconsider their ties to ACORN and precipitated a number of investigations by federal agencies into ACORN's conduct.

Related: IRS inspector general joins entities looking into ACORN

The law passed by Congress denying ACORN federal funding also came in the wake of the release of the controversial videos.

Update: In a statement e-mailed to CNN, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, the Ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called ACORN's suit "baseless."

With a year to go before midterm congressional elections, a new national poll suggests that Republicans are making gains.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – With a year to go before midterm congressional elections, a new national poll suggests that Republicans are making gains but that Americans are divided over whether they'd vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district.

According to a Gallup survey released Wednesday morning, 48 percent of registered voters questioned answered that they would vote for the Republican candidate if the 2010 election for the House was held today, while 44 percent said they would back the Democrat in the race. The GOP's 4 point advantage is within the poll's sampling error.

The Republican Party's lead is a switch from a Gallup poll released a month ago, when 46 percent said they'd back a Democrat, a two point advantage over the GOP. Republicans trailed the Democrats by 6 points when Gallup questioned Americans in July.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released last week indicated that 50 percent of registered voters would vote for the Democratic candidate, with 44 percent saying they would back the Republican candidate. The 6-point advantage for the Democrats was within that poll's sampling error.

Other polls conducted over the past two months also suggest a division among Americans when it comes to the generic ballot question, which asks a respondent if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district without naming any specific candidates.

According to the Gallup poll, Democrats said overwhelmingly they would vote for a Democratic candidate, while Republican voters said they would overwhelmingly back the GOP candidate. Independents broke 52 percent to 30 percent for the Republicans. That 22 point advantage for the GOP among Independents is up from a 9 point margin last month.

Next November, all 435 seats in the House and more than a third of the Senate seats are up for grabs. Democrats currently hold a 258-177 advantage in the House, and a 20 seat margin in the Senate.

"When Democratic and Republican candidates for U.S. House square off a year from now, they may face a very different electorate than the one that put Barack Obama in power a year ago," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In 2008, Democratic voters were generally more enthusiastic about voting than Republicans; now it's the GOP's turn to benefit from an enthusiasm gap."

The Gallup poll was conducted by telephone from November 5-8, with the 894 registered voters questioned mostly before the House health care reform vote on November 7. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @psteinhausercnn

'Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians,' Sen. Jim DeMint said in a statement.

Washington (CNN) - A handful of Republican senators have proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit the amount of time a person may serve in Congress.

Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve 6 years in the House.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power."

Two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment - a stumbling block that short-circuited the idea 14 years ago. The new proposal echoes the Citizen Legislature Act, part of the original Contract with America proposed by Republicans before they won control of Congress in 1994. That measure, which would have allowed both senators and members of the House to serve just 12 years, won a majority in the Republican-controlled House in 1995, but failed because it did not meet the constitutionally-required two-thirds threshold.

"There is no question there are big obstacles in the way," said Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, a non-partisan organization that advocates putting time restrictions in place. "It is difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, however the goal is worthwhile and it is very important to the country. Also, if not now, when?"

This time around, proponents are not calling on lawmakers who believe in the idea to place a self-imposed term limit on themselves.

"If you are asking people to self limit, what might happen and what did happen, is that honorable politicians who made the pledge left office," while others did not, Blumel said. "The answer to the term limit supporter is not self limiting. It is the body as a whole."

DeMint, who is currently serving his first six-year term in the Senate, echoed Blumel's rational for dismissing self-imposed term limits.

"I want to be clear: demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue," DeMint said in Tuesday's statement. "We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms."

One of the original co-sponsors of the amendment is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who is serving her third term in the Senate, but is expected to resign her seat to focus attention on a gubernatorial bid.

A spokesman for Hutchison said it is easy to square the fact that the Texas Republican is advocating for a cap of two terms even though she is currently in the middle of her third term.

"Throughout her career she has fought for term limits and continues to do so and that is why she is cosponsoring this bill," said Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky. "But until it is passed, it would do a disservice to Texas and the people of Texas to do away with the seniority she has gained unless all the states and all of the senators hold themselves to the same standard."

The two other original cosponsors of the amendment are Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas. Coburn, a first-term senator, is up for re-election to his second term in 2010, while Brownback is retiring next year after pledging to only serve two full terms in the Senate. As congressmen, both voted in favor of the GOP's Contract with America term limit proposal in 1995. Coburn, a longtime term limits supporter, retired from the House in 2000 after serving three terms based on that pledge.

'Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians,' Sen. Jim DeMint said in a statement.

Washington (CNN) - A handful of Republican senators have proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit the amount of time a person may serve in Congress.

Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve 6 years in the House.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power."

Two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment - a stumbling block that short-circuited the idea 14 years ago. The new proposal echoes the Citizen Legislature Act, part of the original Contract with America proposed by Republicans before they won control of Congress in 1994. That measure, which would have allowed both senators and members of the House to serve just 12 years, won a majority in the Republican-controlled House in 1995, but failed because it did not meet the constitutionally-required two-thirds threshold.

"There is no question there are big obstacles in the way," said Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, a non-partisan organization that advocates putting time restrictions in place. "It is difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, however the goal is worthwhile and it is very important to the country. Also, if not now, when?"

This time around, proponents are not calling on lawmakers who believe in the idea to place a self-imposed term limit on themselves.

"If you are asking people to self limit, what might happen and what did happen, is that honorable politicians who made the pledge left office," while others did not, Blumel said. "The answer to the term limit supporter is not self limiting. It is the body as a whole."

DeMint, who is currently serving his first six-year term in the Senate, echoed Blumel's rational for dismissing self-imposed term limits.

"I want to be clear: demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue," DeMint said in Tuesday's statement. "We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms."

One of the original co-sponsors of the amendment is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who is serving her third term in the Senate, but is expected to resign her seat to focus attention on a gubernatorial bid.

A spokesman for Hutchison said it is easy to square the fact that the Texas Republican is advocating for a cap of two terms even though she is currently in the middle of her third term.

"Throughout her career she has fought for term limits and continues to do so and that is why she is cosponsoring this bill," said Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky. "But until it is passed, it would do a disservice to Texas and the people of Texas to do away with the seniority she has gained unless all the states and all of the senators hold themselves to the same standard."

The two other original cosponsors of the amendment are Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas. Coburn, a first-term senator, is up for re-election to his second term in 2010, while Brownback is retiring next year after pledging to only serve two full terms in the Senate. As congressmen, both voted in favor of the GOP's Contract with America term limit proposal in 1995. Coburn, a longtime term limits supporter, retired from the House in 2000 after serving three terms based on that pledge.

The House passed its health care bill late Saturday night by a 220-215 vote, with 39 Democrats in opposition and one Republican supporting it. Senate approval is considered less certain due to opposition by all Republicans and some moderate Democrats.

Obama called the support by many House members "courageous" in the face of what he called "the heated and often misleading rhetoric around this legislation."

Full story

Washington (CNN) - The House of Representatives passed a sweeping health care bill Saturday night with a tight vote of 220-215, making it the biggest expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was created more than 40 years ago.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, restricts insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history. It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford it and guarantees coverage for 96 percent of Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

However, turning the bill into law remains uncertain.

Full story

New York Rep. Eliot Engel shows some home town pride.

Washington (CNN) – New York Democratic congressman took to the House floor Friday morning to congratulate the New York Yankees for winning the World Series. But the discourse quickly turned to partisan attacks.

Democrat Reps. Eliot Engel and Edolphus Towns began the accolades. Engle, who lives in the Bronx, wore a Yankee cap, calling it "a symbol of unity." He said, "I know it is violating rules to put a hat on, but I am going to do it for just two seconds because I think it is really important that I put this on...In Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in the Middle East wherever we go we see people wearing Yankee hats."

But Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz wanted to talk about health care and not baseball. "While the Democrats want to talk baseball we want to talk about health care," he said. "While the New York Yankees are winning the World Series the American families are striking out."

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano fired back at Chaffetz. Serrano accused the Republican of turning the World Series into a partisan issue. "Americans celebrate success and I am positive that there is not a single American in this country, except for some in this House, who would think that what we are doing today is wrong."

Serrano added, "This weekend we will deal with the biggest issue of our times."

Health care or Yankees, New York Democrat Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez took another position.

"I just would like for the record to reflect the fact that I am a Mets fan," she said.

Nearly six in ten Americans want Congress to continue working on health care reform bills that have been passed through various committees, according to a new CNN poll.

Washington (CNN) - Nearly six in ten Americans want Congress to continue working on health care reform bills that have been passed through various committees, according to a new national poll.

Full results (pdf)

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also indicates that one in four say lawmakers should start from scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care reform.

The survey's release Friday morning comes one day before the full House of Representatives is expected to hold a floor vote on the Democrats health care reform bill.

"Most of the Democrats interviewed support some form of heath care reform, but the divisions within congressional Democrats are reflected in the party nationwide," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Forty percent of the Democratic rank and file want Congress to approve the proposals that have passed through committee with only minor changes. But an equal number of Democrats nationwide want Congress to make major changes to those proposals before approving them."

According to the poll, 45 percent support President Barack Obama's proposals to reform health care, with 53 percent opposed to his plans. This is the first time since the president's early September prime time address a joint session of Congress on health care that a majority of people questioned in a CNN survey oppose Obama's proposals.

"Six in ten independents say they oppose Obama's health care proposals," says Holland. "That's a nine point increase since October."

The House bill that faces a probable Saturday vote contains a version of the public option, an insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private insurance companies. According to the poll, 55 percent support the public option, with 44 percent opposed.

Rising health care costs could be a factor in support for Congress to take action.

"The appetite for some version of health care reform may be explained by the fact that 55 percent of Americans with health insurance say that their insurance company has raised rates, deductibles or co-payments within the past year," says Holland.
No House Republicans are expected to vote Saturday for the Democrats health care bill.

"With any health care bill likely to face near-unanimous opposition from the GOP, only one in three Americans say that the Republicans in Congress are doing enough to cooperate with Barack Obama. Is Obama doing enough to reach out to Republicans? Half say yes; half say no," adds Holland.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted October 30-November 1, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter @psteinhausercnn

The House and Senate each observed a moment of silence Thursday or victims of the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and their families.

Washington (CNN) - Both chambers of Congress observed moments of silence Thursday for victims of the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and their families.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, notified the chamber of the "extraordinarily sad and wrenching news" of the violence.

"We do not know the nature of this attack, but it is a serious attack on our war fighters," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, who represents the district that includes Fort Hood. Carter noted that many troops at the fort had been deployed overseas four times.

The Senate also held a moment of silence after comments by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Related: Eleven killed, plus gunman, in Fort Hood shootings, officials say

Related: Fort Hood, a home to thousands

The House and Senate have both approved an extension of unemployment benefits.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Unemployed Americans are set to get up to 20 additional weeks of jobless benefits, while new homebuyers are poised to see the $8,000 tax credit extended into mid-next year.

The House approved the measures by a 403-12 vote Thursday afternoon, a day after the Senate passed the legislation. The bill now moves to the White House for the president's signature.

The closely watched legislation would extend jobless benefits in all states by 14 weeks. Those that live in states with unemployment greater than 8.5% would receive an additional six weeks. The proposal would be funded by extending a longstanding federal unemployment tax on employers through June 30, 2011.

The measure would apply to those whose benefits run out by Dec. 31, which is nearly two million people, according to Senate estimates. Those whose checks have already stopped would be able to reapply for another round.

Full story on CNNMoney.com

TOPICS: 2010 midterms, Congress, Democrats, Republicans

Full results (pdf)

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll indicates that Americans are divided over whether they'd vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – With a year to go before midterm congressional elections, a new national poll indicates that Americans are divided over whether they'd vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district.

Fifty percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they would vote for the Democratic candidate if the election for the House of Represenatives were held today, with 44 percent saying they'd back the Republican candidate. Five percent say they'd vote for neither major party candidate and 2 percent are undecided.

The 6-point advantage for the Democrats is at the edge of the poll's sampling error.

Other organizations' surveys conducted over the past two months also suggest a division among Americans when it comes to the generic ballot question, which asks a respondent if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district, without naming any specific candidates.

Next November, all 435 seats in the House and more than a third of the Senate seats are up for grabs. Democrats currently hold a 79-seat margin in the House of Representatives, with two seats vacant, and a 20 seat margin in the Senate.

According to the poll, Americans are also divided on whether they have made up their minds regarding the 2010 midterm contests, with 49 percent saying their minds are made up and 45 percent saying they could change their choice.

The survey also indicates that 46 percent of Republicans say they're enthusiastic about voting next year, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they're energized.

"When Democratic and Republican candidates for U.S. House square of a year from now, they may face a very different electorate than the one that put Barack Obama in power a year ago," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In 2008, Democratic voters were generally more enthusiastic about voting than Republicans; now it's the GOP's turn to benefit from an enthusiasm gap."

But President Barack Obama, unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, currently appears to give Democratic candidates an advantage: The survey suggests that most registered voters say they are more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who supports Obama. Four in 10 are say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes Obama.

"Historically, these tea leaves are very hard to read," adds Holland. Democrats and Republicans had virtually the same numbers a year before the 1994 midterm elections that put the GOP in power, he says, but the two parties also had roughly the same strength a year before the 2006 midterms that put the Democrats back in the saddle on Capitol Hill. "Add to that the fact that nearly half of all voters say they could change their minds between now and election day, 2010, and it's clear that any prediction would be futile," says Holland.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted October 30-November 1, with 952 registered voters questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Full results (pdf)

Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @psteinhausercnn

WASHINGTON (CNN) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday, telling U.S. lawmakers that the world needs an agreement on global warming.

"Icebergs are melting in the Arctic. In Africa, people become refugees because their environment has been destroyed," she said.

"We need an agreement on one objective: Global warming must not exceed two degrees Celsius."

She said the agreement must be reached at a the climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month.

Merkel is the first German chancellor to address a joint meeting of Congress.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Confused about whether lawmakers will extend the $8,000 first-time homebuyer credit and what it would look like?

That's understandable, since the situation is still very fluid.

Here's where things stand.

Full story on CNNMoney.com

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) - As credit card companies continue raising rates and fees, lawmakers are considering bills to stop such hikes until new credit card laws take effect.

In the House, a key committee passed a bill to move up by nearly three months the start date of new laws aimed at cracking down on the way credit card issuers raise fees and assess credit risk. The new start date would be Dec. 1, up from Feb. 22.

"It was argued. . . that they needed more time, and we granted them more time, but it was under the understanding that abusive practices would not continue, and double and increase dramatically," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., a bill sponsor, debating amendments to it.

The House Financial Services committee passed it on a voice vote.

In the Senate, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others have introduced a bill to freeze credit card interest rates until the new legislation takes effect Feb. 22.

"We worked long and hard to enact the safeguards included in the Credit CARD Act," Dodd said. "And no sooner had it been signed into law, but credit card companies were looking for ways to get around the protections this Congress and the American people demanded."

Congressional watchers say that the odds are against passage for either bill, especially since the two are not identical.

"For now, this seems to be much more about scoring political points by beating up on unpopular credit card companies than on pushing legislation that can get enacted quickly," said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with Concept Capital's Washington Research Group.

Still, public outrage continues to boil over on the topic, especially as card issuers continue to hike rates.

On Tuesday, the Pew Charitable Trusts released a study showing that interest rates rose by an average of 23% from December 2008 to July 2009.

Also, they found that all the largest banks and card issuers had engaged in practices that would be prohibited under the new credit card laws, such as hiking penalty rates on those who are just barely late on a credit card payment. The new law would only allow such a hike if the cardholder is more two months late.

"The unfair and deceptive practices that the credit card act targets remain widespread, and in some cases we've seen it getting worse," said Nick Bourke, manager of the Pew Safe Credit Cards Project.

The banks say that tinkering with the new law start date is unnecessary. They say rates are rising because customers and economic times are riskier. Record number of cardholders have been walking away from card debt, unable to pay, according to Federal Reserve data.

"We oppose it, because the two main factors driving the changes are the increased risk of nonpayment from the borrower and the riskiness of the economy," said Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable, a business lobbying group.

Last week, Republicans on the House panel pointed to a letter that Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke wrote, in response to questions asking about the consequences if Congress moves up the effective date. Bernanke said it could be tough on companies, and it would prevent the Fed from getting feedback on proposed its new rules cracking down on fees.

"Although a December 1 effective date could provide benefits for consumers, the Board continues to believe that. . .card issuers must be afforded sufficient time for implementation to allow for an orderly transition and to avoid unintended consequences," Bernanke wrote.

The Credit CARD Act was signed into law by President Obama on May 22, with a first round of changes - including giving cardholders 45 days notice before a hike takes effect - taking hold in August. The more substantial changes were slated to take effect about six months later.

Among other things, the new law bans rate hikes unless a consumer is more than 60 days late - and then restores the previous rate after six months if minimum payments are made. It also makes it harder for people under age 21 to get credit cards.

The fourth annual 'Longest Yard' flag-football game raised more than $75,000 for the Capitol Police Foundation and the Washington Literary Council, but former Washington Redskins quarterback turned Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, said the high spirited game might help to bridge the differences between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

"It's putting some comraderie back in … the U.S. House," Shuler told CNN. "I know if we can work together on the football field we can certainly work together when it comes to our policies."

Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter of California, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Jeff Flake of Arizona as well as Democratic Re. Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois joined Shuler on the bipartisan congressional roster. GOP Rep. Bill Shuster coached the squad.

Several former NFL players were on and off the field including, Washington Redskin Ken Harvey, former Philadelphia Eagle John Booty, and former Detroit Lion Ed Lee.

Harvey said it was a unique experience to watch the members of Congress come together as a team.

"One day when we were at practice and I was looking around and these guys that you know are bitter enemies and fighting with each other and they're here joking together laughing and just really coming together for a common cause," Harvey said. "I think that's pretty awesome."

The only thing the Democrats and Republicans argued about was playing time, which fell to Shuster to make sure everyone was happy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner helped the bipartisan spirit from the sidelines, but Pelosi had a word of caution for the members of Congress: Don't beat the Capitol Police too badly.

"We want the members to win, but we want the guards to be very strong because their day job is very important," Pelosi said.

When the whistle blew, the Congressional team beat the Capitol Police 32 to 26 in overtime.

President Obama was joined Wednesday by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a ceremony honoring former Sen. Edward Brooke. (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

Washington (CNN) - Edward Brooke, the first African-American elected to the U.S. Senate by popular vote, was honored Wednesday with a Congressional Gold Medal.

"At a time when so many doors were closed to African-Americans, others might have become angry or disillusioned," President Obama told an audience in the Capitol Rotunda, where the ceremony honoring Brooke for Congress' greatest honor was held.

"They might have concluded that no matter how hard they worked, their horizons would always be limited. So why bother? Not Ed Brooke," he said.

Brooke, 90, was a Republican senator from Massachusetts for two full terms, from 1967 to 1979.

"He ran for office, as he put it, to bring people together who had never been together before, and that he did," the president said.

Full story