WASHINGTON  – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that this is the last time Congress will go through the ordeal of passing an expensive, unpaid-for war spending bill. It may also be one of the more difficult.

The House, with almost no Republican support, on Tuesday barely approved a $106 billion emergency spending measure that includes $80 billion to sustain military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through this budget year ending Sept. 30.

Republicans supported the war funds but objected to other parts of the bill, particularly $5 billion to open up a U.S. line of credit for an International Monetary Fund loan program for poorer countries hit by the world recession.

The war spending bill sailed through the Senate on a 86-3 vote last month, but passage of the House-Senate compromise worked out last week will be more of a challenge.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. is expected to raise a point of order against a provision inserted in the compromise providing $1 billion for a “cash for clunkers” program that gives consumers government rebates when they trade in old vehicles for more fuel efficient models.

And Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is upset that the final version removed a ban, backed by Graham and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., on releasing photos depicting U.S. troops abusing detainees. President Barack Obama sent Congress a letter pledging that he would stop any attempt to release the photos, but Graham’s office said he wants more assurances and a vote on the issue before it goes to court next month.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate both to waive a point of order and to proceed to legislation over the objections of a senator.

Reid, citing the lack of Republican support in the House, said “it’ll be interesting to see what happens here. Are my Republican colleagues going to join with us to fund the troops? I hope so.”

He also said this would be “the last time we’ll have to do this because President Obama is honest with his budgeting.”

Every year since the Sept. 11 attacks Congress has passed emergency spending bills to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and enhance security programs. Because these bills are off-budget – not included in annual budget considerations – they are not paid for and add to the national debt. If the current bill is enacted, the total spending for these “supplementals” since 2001 will approach $1 trillion, with about 70 percent going to Iraq.

Obama, who is seeking to wind down military operations in Iraq while bolstering military forces in Afghanistan, has pledged to fund all war operations through the regular defense budget. He has asked for $130 billion in the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

The spending bill also includes $10.4 billion for economic and other assistance to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and other countries, and $7.7 billion for pandemic flu preparations. It has $534 million for some 185,000 service members who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended since Sept. 11, 2001. They will receive $500 for every month they were held under stop-loss orders.

The House on Tuesday brought to the floor the first of 12 appropriations, or spending, bills that it must pass to run the federal government during the 2010 fiscal year. It immediately ran into trouble.

Appropriations bill are traditionally debated under a process that gives the minority free rein to offer amendments. But after Republicans proposed more than 100 amendments and would not agree to time limits on debate on a $64.4 billion measure funding law enforcement, science and census programs, Democrats temporarily pulled the bill so they could tighten the amendment procedure.

“If this continues, we will not finish appropriations bills before August” and there will be no time for other priorities such as health care and energy reform, said Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis.

But Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, top Republican on the committee, said it appeared that the intent of Democrats “is to change the rules of the game in the middle of the first inning and shut the minority out of the legislative process altogether.”

Lewis will be allowed to offer an amendment that would prohibit funding for any attempt by the Obama administration to shut down the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. That amendment
would strengthen a provision already in the bill rejecting the administration’s request for $60 million for the Justice Department to carry out the closing of the facility.

The war spending bill also states that no money can be used for closing the detention facility this fiscal year. It also prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the United States except to be prosecuted and only after Congress receives a plan detailing risks involved.

The war funding bill is H.R. 2346. The appropriations bill is H.R. 2847.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.  – Former Carolina Panthers safety Mike Minter said Wednesday that he will make a decision in the next few weeks whether to challenge for the 8th District seat.

The seat is currently held by Democrat Larry Kissell, who defeated 10-year Republican incumbent Rep. Robin Hayes in November’s election.

Minter spoke minutes after returning from a two-day visit to Washington where surveyed the political scene. He said he would discuss the issue with his family and pastor before deciding.

“My thing right now is trying to find the best way I can help people achieve what they need to achieve,” Minter said. “This is just another option that was thrown on the table for me to look at.”

Minter is one of the most popular players in Panthers history. A second-round pick out of Nebraska in 1997, Minter became a mainstay in the Panthers’ secondary and remains the team’s leading tackler. He retired in training camp in 2007 because of chronic knee pain, but has remained active in the community.

Minter is involved in several business, charitable and religious activities and has even attempted acting. He’ll play the lead role in a movie, “Sins of Ashe County.” Filming began recently in the Carolinas.

Minter is also coaching a local high school football team and is involved in UNC Charlotte’s efforts to start a football program. Minter said he’s also inquired about coaching that team, too.

“I’m not afraid to look at something or try something to see if that’s an area I want to focus on,” Minter said.

Minter would compete for a seat in 2010 that had been solidly Republican until Kissell edged Hayes in November, one of several seats the GOP lost nationally in the election.

The Tar Heels are being praised on the floor of the U.S. House.

WASHINGTON  – Congressional Democrats pushed to wrap up negotiations on a budget plan that would help President Barack Obama’s ambitious goal of overhauling the health care system.

Negotiators from the House and Senate met Monday, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., confirmed details of a tentative pact reached last week that would prevent Senate Republicans from delaying or blocking Obama’s plan to vastly expand government-subsidized health care.

The $3.5 trillion plan for the budget year starting Oct. 1 embraces several of Obama’s key goals, including health care reform, funds for domestic programs and clean energy, and a tax increase for individuals making more than $200,000 a year or couples making more than $250,000.

But the plan would allow Obama’s signature $400 tax cut for most workers to expire at the end of next year. Even after squeezing the defense and war budgets to levels that are probably unrealistic, the plan would cause a deficit of $523 billion in five years.

“I think this is a good budget,” Conrad said. But, he added, “Much more will have to be done to get us on a more sustainable course,” including slowing the growth of benefit programs like Medicare and overhauling the tax code.

The plan would patch the alternative minimum tax for three years to prevent more than 20 million taxpayers from getting socked with increases averaging $2,000 or so. The estate tax would be kept at current levels and allow for estates up to $7 million to be exempt from the tax with a 45 percent rate applying to inheritances above that.

It would cut Obama’s request of about $50 billion worth of increases for non-defense agency operating budgets by about $10 billion, lowering the increases from 10 percent on average to 8 percent.

Under Capitol Hill’s arcane rules, the annual congressional budget produces an outline for follow-up tax and spending legislation. Most importantly, the measure would allow Obama’s health plan to pass the Senate by a simple majority instead of the 60 votes that are needed for plenty of other legislation.

Democrats and independent allies control 58 Senate seats.

Democrats hope the House will adopt the budget on Tuesday and the Senate on Wednesday, which marks Obama’s 100 days in office.

Obama and his Democratic allies say they still want support from Republicans for health care legislation but need the option of expedited action in case the debate becomes overly partisan.

“For this bipartisan process to take root, Republicans must demonstrate a sincere interest in legislating,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a letter Monday to GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “Rather than just saying no, you must be willing to offer concrete and constructive proposals.”

The fast-track rules also would apply to Obama’s plan to eliminate lender subsidies on banks and other lenders presently participating in the federal student loan program. Direct lending by the government would replace the program, with the savings dedicated to boosting Pell Grants for lower-income college students.

While handing Obama a victory, there is still an extraordinary amount of work before Obama’s vision of health care reform becomes a reality, including raising taxes and cutting spending to generate $1 trillion or more over the next decade to fund the health care initiative.

The budget plan also anticipates the expiration of former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts on wealthier people’s income and investments at the end of next year. But it ignores Obama’s calls for raising taxes to help pay for his health care initiative by reducing the benefits wealthier people take on itemizeddeductions like charitable gifts and mortgage interest.

WASHINGTON  – The next battleground over gay marriage could be the U.S. Capitol.

A preliminary vote by the District of Columbia city council to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere puts the issue on a path to Congress, which has final say over D.C.’s laws. That may force lawmakers to take up the politically dicey debate after years of letting it play out in the states.

“Let’s be clear, this is a new era,” openly gay D.C. Council member David Catania said Wednesday, expressing optimism that the city’s law would clear Congress after a final council vote in May.

The council’s unanimous vote Tuesday came the same day Vermont became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote. Court rulings led to same-sex marriages in the three other states where it’s legal: Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa.

Like the measure approved in D.C., New York also recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but hasn’t issued its own marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples.

The situation in D.C. is unique, though. After the legislation receives final approval from the council, which is supposed to come next month, the bill is then subject to a 30-day congressional review. That review could be the new Congress’ first opportunity to signal its appetite for re-examining the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to do the same.

Since that federal law was passed in 1996, the debate has primarily played out in individual states.

Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions – in 1999 – and Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, which began taking place there in 2004.

Advocates see Washington holding symbolic importance in the debate, but some stressed that there isn’t a dominant battleground in the quest for marriage equality.

“The district is equivalent to a small state, and the only difference is Congress’ ability to interfere with local
decisions,” said David Smith, vice president of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign. “We would treat it as any other state and move to defend the decision of the legislature or the courts.”

However, Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director at New York-based Lambda Legal, noted that D.C. is unique and influential because of its national focus.

“There’s important national attention on the things that happen in the district because it’s the seat of the federal government,” she said.

Opponents said it remains to be seen whether a Democrat-controlled Congress will have any interest in repealing the city’s efforts. A spokesman for a House subcommittee that oversees the city’s affairs said Wednesday that the subcommittee was not commenting on the D.C. measure. Congress is in recess through April 17.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, a Christian organization that opposes same-sex marriage, said the group was considering several strategies, including a legal challenge on whether the legislation violates the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

“I’m concerned that every step closer to same-sex marriage that does not meet resistance makes it easier for some people to accept same-sex marriage down the road,” Sprigg said.

The Obama Administration has spoken of working with Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. John Berry, who is gay and support repealing the federal policy that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, was confirmed by the Senate last week to lead the Office of Personnel Management.

Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., said she hopes the momentum of the D.C. Council’s vote, along with the recent changes in Iowa and Vermont, “will bring our country closer to recognizing the right of consenting individuals in monogamous, long-term relationships to marry.” Tsongas added that she would strongly advocate for the D.C. law in Congress.

The issue of same-sex relationships in D.C. has previously run into trouble on Capitol Hill.

The district passed a law in 1992 recognizing domestic partnerships, which extended medical decision-making powers and other benefits to same-sex couples. But Congress restricted the city from spending its own funds to implement the law until 2002.

City officials say it’s rare for Congress to meddle in local affairs, but it’s not unprecedented.

Recently, lawmakers unhappy with D.C.’s strict gun control measures have tried to weaken the regulations by attaching an amendment to a bill giving the city its first full vote in Congress.

“Everyone would agree we have a tricky relationship with Congress, even when our allies are in power,” said Catania, who is pledging to introduce a measure soon that would legalize same-sex marriages in the district. “But progress is made by moving forward, not standing still.”

Members of Congress had to post their earmarks this week.

Here is a running tally of how many requests North Carolina’s Congressional delegation sought in this year’s budget:

WASHINGTON  – Democrats controlling the House and Senate are on track to give President Barack Obama a key victory by adopting slightly pared-back versions of his $3.6 trillion budget.

Passage of the companion plans, expected Thursday, would provide the young administration with a symbolic boost, even though the budget blueprints provide little guidance on how to craft subsequent Obama initiatives to reshape the U.S. health care system or combat global warming.

House Democrats are pressing a plan to make it easier to use “fast-track” rules to expedite passage of health care legislation backed by Obama, even as their GOP rivals in the Senate won a key vote Wednesday emphatically rejecting such an approach on global warming.

Republicans in both chambers are putting forward alternatives that are more generous with tax cuts and stingier with spending, but none of the plans – Obama’s, House and Senate Democrats’, or the competing GOP outlines – would succeed in tamping down the deficit much below $500 billion within five years.

Congressional budget resolutions are nonbinding blueprints that set the parameters for legislation to follow. Unlike budget resolutions typically advanced in the first years of a presidency, the 2010 budget plans are remarkably light on detail, offering little guidance on how to pay for a health care overhaul or an extension of Obama’s signature $400 tax credit for most workers.

For their part, House Republicans are offering an alternative that eventually would end Medicare as it is presently known.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., broke with Senate GOP leaders to offer a comprehensive budget plan instead of following their strategy of offering piecemeal changes and not going on record with a plan of their own. McCain’s plan would cut spending, deficits and debt significantly below Obama’s budget.

Much of the debate has centered on how to deal with mammoth deficits and what should be done about them. To a considerable degree, however, both parties are paying little heed to the deficit as they advance their respective agendas.

“Our budget reduces the deficit, cuts taxes for middle class families, and makes critical investments in health care, education and clean energy,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Thursday.

Neither Obama nor his Democratic allies made major revisions in light of the worsening deficit picture, though Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., pressed to roll back some of Obama’s increases for domestic programs. In 2010, for example, the Senate budget plan would pare $15 billion from nondefense accounts, which still would leave increases averaging 7 percent.

Those curbs barely dent a deficit projected at $1.2 trillion for the next year. Deficits remain high despite tighter restraint on spending growth in subsequent years.

“The President’s budget shows deficits averaging $600 billion a year even after the economy recovers from the recession and even after our troops come home from Iraq,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif. “That’s not good enough.”

The most contentious question facing Democratic negotiators responsible for reconciling the differing House and Senate versions is whether to use the measures as a precursor to advancing health care legislation under rules that would allow the compromise bill to pass the Senate by a simple majority after just 20 hours of debate.

As a general rule, debate is freewheeling in the Senate and most bills need 60 votes to advance, guaranteeing that the minority party has leverage.

Seeking the upper hand over Senate Republicans, House leaders are insisting on having a filibuster-proof bill at the ready if bipartisan efforts to pass health care fall apart. That effort is being resisted by the Senate, though it seems increasingly clear that the final House-Senate compromise on the budget is likely to allow health care reform to pass on a fast track.

After a decisive vote Wednesday, global warming legislation apparently will not advance on such a filibuster-proof path. By a 67-31 tally, the Senate adopted an amendment by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., against allowing controversial cap-and-trade climate change legislation to pass the Senate with fewer than 60 votes.

In the House, Republicans unveiled a budget plan that gradually would eliminate the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, offering a stark – and politically problematic – alternative to blueprints from Obama and his Democratic allies.

The plan would have future Medicare beneficiaries – people 54 and younger – enroll in private health insurance plans and receive a subsidy on their premiums. Benefits would not be changed for people in the program or those 55 or older.

Democrats warned that the GOP proposal would result in sharply higher costs for the elderly as the value of the subsidy fails to keep up with health care inflation.

WASHINGTON  – The House was poised Wednesday to thrust tobacco companies under government control after years of attempts in legislatures and the courts to tame one of the country’s signature industries.

Senate action would still be required, as well as President Barack Obama’s signature, before the Food and Drug Administration could get authority for the first time to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Supporters were convinced that both those pieces were in place. They pointed to strong backing from the White House – where Obama has spoken of his own struggles to kick the cigarette habit – and an increased Democratic majority in a Senate that’s already shown itself inclined to support the bill.

If it does become law, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would amount to the biggest change ever in the government’s approach toward tobacco, which has remained largely hands-off even as the health hazards have become increasingly clear.

Although the FDA wouldn’t be allowed to ban nicotine or tobacco, the agency would be able to regulate the contents of tobacco products, make public their ingredients, prohibit flavoring, require much larger warning labels and control marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

“This would be the most significant tobacco bill the Congress of the United States has ever enacted,” said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “It would bring about fundamental change in the marketing, manufacturing and sale of cigarettes.”

Opponents, including some tobacco companies and lawmakers from tobacco-growing states, contended that the FDA, which has come under criticism after fumbling a series of health scares, was already overburdened and couldn’t handle the job of regulating another big industry. U.S. tobacco production was valued at $1.3 billion in 2007.
  
Opponents also argued that the bill by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., was unrealistically aimed at ending smoking altogether and wouldn’t allow nicotine addicts to learn of alternatives like smokeless tobacco.

Adult tobacco users who have not quit “should be encouraged to move from tobacco products with higher risks to those with lower risks,” said Maura Payne, spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

The House was expected to vote Wednesday on an alternate bill by Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., that would encourage development of less-harmful tobacco products and create a Tobacco Harm Reduction Center within the Department of Health and Human Services, instead of giving the job to the FDA.

The country’s largest tobacco company, Marlboro-maker Philip Morris USA, is supporting Waxman’s bill. Some analysts say the legislation could lock in Philip Morris’ market share while stunting the ability of other companies to compete.

Under President George W. Bush, who issued a veto threat after the House passed a nearly identical version of Waxman’s bill last year, the FDA said it didn’t want the job of regulating tobacco. The Obama administration is welcoming the task.

The White House issued a statement Wednesday saying it “strongly supported” the bill, and Obama’s nominee for HHS secretary, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, backed it during a hearing this week.

The issue has a long history laced with lawsuits and politics. President Bill Clinton’s FDA chief, David Kessler, pushed hard for tobacco regulations. Around the same period, in 1994, Waxman summoned the heads of big tobacco to the famous hearing in which they testified that nicotine wasn’t addictive.

Subsequent lawsuits against tobacco companies resulted in big payouts to states, some of which funded smoking-reduction campaigns that have contributed to a decrease in smoking rates. About one in five adults in the U.S. now smokes cigarettes. But a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that FDA didn’t have the authority to regulate tobacco makes congressional action necessary.

WASHINGTON – Musicians Josh Groban, Wynton Marsalis and Linda Ronstadt are pressing Congress for more public funding for the arts.

The three were among arts advocates who testified before a House subcommittee Tuesday. Ronstadt tells the subcommittee she’s dismayed when school children can’t sing a song as simple as “Happy Birthday” in the correct pitch.

Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was slashed in the mid-1990s and has yet to return to a its high of $176 million in 1992.

This year, the federal stimulus package would add $50 million to the $155 million the agency is receiving from Congress. But supporters worry about how the NEA will fare in years when there’s no infusion of stimulus dollars. They say 10,000 arts jobs are at risk this year.