Latest Debates in Congress

Affordable Housing
Addressing the Basic Needs of Low-Income Families
Should the House Approve H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, December 2007)

An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more than 50 percent of their annual incomes on housing, and since 2000, the number of middle-income households that spend more than half their pre-tax wages on rent has doubled. Meanwhile, there is an acute lack of affordable housing, especially rental, in the United States.

Another reason for the affordable housing shortage is that over the last decade or so, Federal policies have emphasized homeownership over other options — even though about a third of all households still rent.

Over the years, the concept of homeownership as the ultimate realization of the “American dream” gradually has taken hold. Today, the Federal Government operates a patchwork of programs that include not only rental housing subsidies to meet a variety of needs but also mortgage insurance, Federal Home Loan Banks, and the government- sponsored private corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which work with mortgage lenders to ensure a steady flow of funds for homeownership.

In the current Congress, legislation has been proposed to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, long sought by housing and homeless advocates and many local governments.

The bill, which passed the House in October, would create a separate Treasury account, similar to the Highway Trust Fund, that would be used to build, repair, or rehabilitate 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years and to assist firsttime homebuyers with down payments.

Supporters of the bill say there is a need for a dedicated funding source to build and maintain affordable housing, especially during the current housing market turbulence.

Opponents counter that the trust fund would be duplicative and bureaucratic and would threaten other Federal housing programs by diverting money away from them — in essence, “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

If Congress and the White House can agree on the concept of a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund — by no means a certainty at this point — time will tell whether this newest initiative will make a difference for the millions of Americans for whom affordable housing remains their most pressing need.

U.S. Troop Deployment
Tour Rotation Policy and Armed Forces Burnout
Should the Senate Approve Legislation to Give the Troops Longer Rest Periods Between Deployments?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, November 2007)

The ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — the largest and longest U.S. military engagements since the Vietnam war — have led to a substantial increase in the numbers of service men and women fighting overseas. More than half the Army has been deployed at least once and 15 percent at least twice in support of these operations.

This prolonged combat duty, combined with difficulties in Army recruiting, has raised concerns that enough troops may not be available to accomplish the military’s missions, and that service members and their families are experiencing significant burdens and hardships not shared by the rest of the U.S. population.

Although the Army National Guard and Reserves had been on a schedule of 18- to 21-month mobilizations, soon after taking office in January 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mandated that these components be mobilized for only one year, with five years before another mobilization.

The decision to extend rotations came amid a confrontation between the White House and Congress over Democrats’ efforts to set a deadline for troop withdrawals, and further inflamed growing antiwar sentiment around the country. However, pressure on Congress to bring the troops home, organized over the summer by antiwar activists, failed to break a legislative stalemate — and, it now appears, may not have changed many votes at all.

When Congress returned from its August recess, it took up a number of amendments to the Defense Authorization bill challenging the Administration’s Iraq war policy. One measure, offered by Senator Jim Webb (VA-D), would have required the military to ensure that troops spend at least as much time at home between tours as they do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senators voted 56 to 44 for the Webb amendment, falling four votes short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster — a fate that has consistently befallen Democratic attempts to pass antiwar measures.

Those favoring the Webb troop rotation amendment argued that the current policy is exhausting the troops, putting additional strain on their families, and causing soldiers to leave the military.

Those opposed to the Webb amendment countered that it would disrupt military operations at a time when the surge strategy is starting to show signs of success.

The vote appeared to be another turning point in an ongoing debate that may no longer center on what each side wants, but on what they realistically can achieve.

Covering Uninsured Children
The SCHIP Reauthorization Debate
Should the House Pass H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, October 2007)

Children’s health, an issue that usually inspires bipartisan cooperation, has become one of the most contested issues on this year’s congressional agenda.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — widely considered a success — is set to expire on September 30, 2007. The program was created in 1997 to insure children in families who have too much income to qualify for Medicaid and too little to afford private insurance.

At least 9 million children nationwide remain uninsured, even though they are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid. In early August, the House and Senate passed ambitious SCHIP reauthorization bills, crafted by the Democratic majority, that would significantly increase spending on the program over the next five years to provide care for most of these children. The House bill provides nearly $50 billion over that period, the Senate bill $35 billion. Both bills include new incentives to enroll more children, but impose additional restrictions on eligibility.

To save money, the House bill would change the current formula for determining Medicare payments to physicians. It would also cut spending for Medicare Advantage, which allows beneficiaries to collect Medicare benefits through private health plans. (The Senate bill makes no changes in the Medicare program.) One especially contentious provision in both measures would increase cigarette taxes — the House bill by 45 cents per pack and the Senate bill by 61 cents per pack — to offset costs.

Those favoring the SCHIP reauthorization legislation argue that it will give millions of vulnerable children the health coverage they need to grow and thrive.

Opponents call the legislation an unnecessary and reckless expansion that moves SCHIP in the direction of becoming a full-fledged entitlement (a program that guarantees benefits to anyone meeting certain qualifications).

Further complicating the issue is a veto threat from President George W. Bush.

Despite the politics involved, the debate offers an important opportunity for Congress to reassess health care priorities and the relative roles of Federal and State government and public and private health insurers in providing coverage.

2007-2008 Policy Debate Topic
Sub-Saharan Africa's Public Health Crisis
Is Foreign Aid an Effective Means of Combating Poverty and Disease in Africa?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, September 2007)

Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest regions of the world and contains many of the world’s least-developed countries. The region has just over 10 percent of the world’s population, yet is home to nearly 70 percent of all people living with HIV or AIDS. Of the 350 million to 500 million cases of malaria worldwide, most occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where at least 1 million children under five die of the disease each year. In addition, half a million sub-Saharan Africans die of tuberculosis each year.

Many problems account for this health crisis — substandard housing; lack of clean drinking water or basic sanitation; famine (pervasive across the region); a shortage of health care workers, hospitals, and supplies; and an impoverished education system. Also, high levels of corruption hinder economic and political development, diverting funds that could be invested in public infrastructure.

Meanwhile, AIDS is robbing poor African countries of workers — especially teachers and farmers — that they need to create stable economies. Yet the pandemic continues to grow and spread.

Despite these grim facts, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other relief agencies and organizations point to evidence of progress and success stories — including health surveys showing reduced infant and child mortality in certain African countries and widespread immunization and training of health workers.

Entities disbursing funds for disease-specific programs — including the USAID, the World Bank, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the World Health Organization, and others — maintain that the money is making a positive difference. But many experts disagree.

Those favoring a massive global effort to meet the health crisis maintain that prevention and treatment programs do, in fact, work, but need to be focused and sustained.

Opponents believe that delivering money, food, or medicine without strings attached breeds dependency.

Another school of thought suggests that the debate has been polarized by two extreme views, neither of which is fully accurate. These observers paint a more nuanced picture, in which aid has succeeded in some areas and failed in others. From any angle, giving up is not seen as an option.

Hate Crimes
Federal Prosecution of Bias-Motivated Incidents
Should the House Pass H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act?

Hate crimes — acts of violence or intimidation against people or property motivated by bias against an identifiable social group — are as old as human history. In the United States, the most notorious hate crimes have involved the lynch mobs and cross burnings by the Ku Klux Klan, spray painting of swastikas, and assaults on homosexuals.

Current Federal law covers the use or threat of force based on race, religion, color, or national origin, but applies only when victims are engaged in certain federally protected activities, such as attending school or voting. Of the 45 State hate crime laws, 21 also include mental and physical handicap and 22 cover sexual orientation. Three States and the District of Columbia impose penalties for crimes based on political affiliation.

According to FBI reports, of the 113,000 known hate crimes committed since that time, 55 percent have been motivated by race, 17 percent by religion, 14 percent by sexual orientation, 14 percent by ethnicity, and 1 percent by disability. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 7,163 hate crime incidents were reported.

Proposals to expand existing Federal hate crime statutes have been introduced in each Congress since 1999, but none has been enacted.

In May 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Supporters of the bill argue that hate crimes have become disturbingly prevalent in America, posing a threat to full participation in a democratic society.

Opponents maintain that the legislation is redundant because hate crime offenses are already punishable under current law.

Legislation similar to the House-passed bill is pending in the Senate; however, the White Houses has threatened to veto the measure if it reaches the President’s desk.

D.C. Voting Representation
Democratic Rights for Citizens of the Nation’s Capital
Should the House Pass H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007?

The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1789, created a permanent home for the new national government and gave Congress exclusive power over its existence. But the Constitution also provided that only citizens of States should have voting representation in the national legislature.

How to reconcile these two provisions — the District’s unique political status and Congress’s broad control over the rights and privileges of its citizens — has been an ongoing subject of debate, as Washington, D.C., residents for two centuries have sought voting representation in the House and Senate and autonomy over their own budget and local laws.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that Congress began taking steps to grant District citizens increased political rights.

In 1971, the District was given a non-voting delegate to Congress, and in 1973, the Home Rule Act passed, granting citizens the right to elect their own mayor and city council.

Since then, national lawmakers have regularly introduced bills to give the District voting representation in Congress, but none has been enacted. These proposals have sought to achieve their goal through one of the following means: a constitutional amendment, retrocession of the District of Columbia to Maryland, D.C. statehood, and another statutory solution.

The current, 110th Congress has addressed the issue in two ways. First, the Democratic leadership amended the House rules, as they did in 1993, to allow the D.C. delegate and delegates from the territories to vote in committees and in the Committee of the Whole (the entire House meeting in the form of a committee), as long as their votes do not count toward final passage of a bill.

In addition, the House recently considered the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, introduced by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). The bill would permanently expand the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats by giving the city a representative in the House and adding a seat to the next State in line to gain one, based on the census (currently Utah). This follows the tradition of increasing representation in the House in a politically neutral way.

Proponents of the legislation insist that there is nothing in the Constitution’s history or principles to suggest that the Framers intended to deny voting representation to those who live in the capital of the democracy they founded.

Opponents contend that the Constitution grants voting representation in Congress only to States, and thus no avenue exists, outside of a constitutional amendment or statehood, to provide District residents with voting representation in Congress.

Delegate Norton’s bill was derailed during House floor debate by a procedural motion put forward by opponents. Sponsors have vowed to bring it back; however, President Bush has threatened a veto, and the House currently lacks the votes to override it. Thus, Federal representation remains an elusive goal for those who live in the Nation’s Capital.

Renewable Fuels Policy
The Economics of Energy Conservation
Should Congress Pass H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act?

The current energy debate in Congress seems to echo the warnings of early 1970s, when a Federal energy crisis — brought on by an oil embargo imposed by Arab oil-producing countries — led to serious debate about energy conservation.

In recent years, the George W. Bush Administration and Congress have focused on encouraging more domestic oil and gas production to make the United States less vulnerable to supply shocks triggered by political instability around the world. The centerpiece of this strategy was passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included tax breaks for refiners, pipeline owners, and others in the energy supply chain.

The calculus changed, however, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita knocked out much of the U.S. Gulf Coast energy infrastructure, gas prices rose to more than $3 a gallon and above, and oil companies enjoyed record earnings.

On January 18, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the CLEAN (Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation) Energy Act.

Proponents of the CLEAN Energy Act call it a crucial first step toward a broader energy policy that will reduce the Nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and address climate change.

Opponents argue that the bill punishes oil companies and discourages domestic exploration.

The Senate is expected to craft its own version of the bill this spring. Meanwhile, Democrats plan to advance additional energy initiatives, including proposals to cap carbon dioxide emissions, increase fuel efficiency standards, and mandate the expanded use of alternative fuels. The question remains whether a longlasting agreement can be forged on the larger issues of oil dependence and climate change.

The Minimum Wage Debate
Balancing the Needs of Workers and Business
Should Congress Pass H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act?

As soon as the 110th Congress convened in early January 2007, the newly elected Democratic leadership proposed the Fair Minimum Wage Act, to raise the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over 26 months.

In the Senate, however, when it became clear that supporters lacked the 60 votes needed to override a Republican filibuster against a clean bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV-D) agreed to include in the legislation an $8.3 billion package of tax incentives designed to help small businesses cope with higher labor costs. The bill passed almost unanimously; however, many Democrats who voted for it objected to the tax provisions, preferring to address small business needs in a separate package.

Supporters of the stand-alone House version argue that the raise was long overdue and a matter of social justice to reduce exploitation of workers and help them afford basic necessities.

Critics of the House bill counter that raising the minimum wage without business tax relief would force some companies to lay off or stop hiring entry-level workers.

Economists as well as lawmakers are split over the real impact of the minimum wage and how to measure it. So while this Congress is likely to agree on legislation to provide the first minimum wage increase in a decade — the longest period ever without an adjustment — the perennial debate will continue.

Network Neutrality
Preserving Openness and Innovation on the Internet
Should Congress Require Broadband Providers to Treat Similar Types of Internet Traffic Equally?

“Net neutrality” is a principle that Internet users should be able to access any website or web content and use any application without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs).

Without enforced net neutrality, advocates say, ISPs could degrade a user’s access to a particular website or block it altogether, diverting the user instead to another website in which the ISP has a financial interest.

The question of how to define, protect, and enforce network neutrality was a divisive issue in the 109th Congress as Members, for the first time since 1996, took up legislation to overhaul the telecommunications law.

Net neutrality supporters, including most Democrats, argue that a small number of media giants already own and control much of the content in radio, television, and the press, and, if allowed to control the Internet as well, would become online gatekeepers.

On the other side of the debate, free-market Republicans, backed by telephone and cable companies, say that stronger net neutrality rules would discourage investment in broadband networks and stifle entrepreneurship.

Telecommunications reform legislation will be reintroduced in the newly convened 110th Congress, and with the Democrats now in charge, network neutrality is sure to be front and center in the debate.

Fisheries Management
Confronting the Depletion of Ocean Resources
Is H.R. 5018 a Sound Approach to Regional Fisheries Management?

For centuries, it was assumed that the seas held a limitless bounty. Yet today, the populations of most marine fish species are at an all-time low. An international study published recently in the journal Science warned that nearly one-third of open sea fisheries are in a state of collapse, and that ocean life and seafood could be depleted by as early as 2048. Though bleak, the study said that such techniques as marine reserves and no-fishing zones could help reverse these alarming trends.

The United States has the most territorial ocean waters of any nation, and for many years the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act served as a check on the activities of ocean fisheries. Originally enacted in 1976, the law created for the first time a national program for the conservation and management of fishery resources within the Federal waters of the United States (a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone).

During the last (109th) Congress, lawmakers took up proposals to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The most controversial bill, H.R. 5018, introduced by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (CA-R), set annual catch limits, but did not force fisheries that went beyond those limits to reduce the following year’s catch by the exceeded amount. Instead, it gave regional councils discretion in determining how to curtail overfishing.

Supporters of H.R. 5018 argued that it represented a common-sense approach to fishery management, with enough flexibility to protect local economies.

Opponents of H.R. 5018 maintained that exceptions in the bill would delay the recovery of depleted fisheries.

In the end, negotiators agreed on compromise legislation approved by both the House and Senate right before the adjournment of the lame-duck Congress in December 2006. The new language incorporates some of the recommendations of two major commssions of the last few years — the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. National Ocean Commsssion — both of which concluded that the oceans are in crisis.

While both sides call the new law a major step forward that recognizes the urgency of the current threat, they also acknowledged that the next Congress will have to take further action — without delay — to address the problems facing the world’s oceans.

View 2006 Debates