Obama Signs Expiring Patriot Act Provisions with Autopen

By Niels Lesniewski and Brian Friel, CQ Staff

Minutes before the deadline for expiring provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act, the White House said President Obama signed the four-year extension that the House cleared Thursday night.

The White House said the president, traveling in Europe, would direct the use of the autopen to sign the bill (S 990) into law and thereby prevent the lapsing of the anti-terrorism authorities set to expire at 12:01 a.m. Friday.

White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the autopen would be used because the “failure to sign this legislation poses a significant risk to U.S. national security.” An autopen, frequently used by members of Congress for signing constituent correspondence and other letters, is a machine that generates a facsimile of an individual’s signature.

The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in 2005 that confirms the president’s authority to direct a subordinate to put the president’s signature on an enrolled bill through autopen.

House Action

The House concurred in the Senate amendment to the bill by a vote of 250-153, with 31 Republicans joining 122 Democrats to vote against the extension. Fifty-four Democrats voted for the bill.

While Republican leaders urged their colleagues to clear the measure, calling it a “bipartisan and bicameral compromise,” opponents took time to make the case against the extension during House floor debate.

Democrats and Republicans against the measure said the death of Osama bin Laden had changed the intelligence climate and raised concerns that Congress was “once again” rushing to reauthorize the capabilities.

“These provisions were given a sunset for a reason,” argued longtime Patriot Act opponent Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio.

But supporters of the measure strongly disagreed with that conclusion. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, insisted the provisions “continue to play a vital role in America’s counterterrorism efforts.”

Smith said Congress has done the necessary oversight and held numerous hearings on the provisions. He also stressed the administration’s support for the extension.

Senate Action

Earlier Thursday, before final adoption 72-23 of a motion to concur in an unrelated House measure (S 990) with substitute language, the Senate soundly rejected two amendments offered by Rand Paul, R-Ky.

The main stumbling block to passage was an amendment offered by Paul that would have barred government investigators from using the Patriot Act’s “business record” provision to obtain the background forms that gun buyers fill out when they purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers.

Republicans objected to the amendment, Paul said earlier in the day. Though the Senate often passes gun-rights measures, this one was easily defeated when the Senate voted to table it, 85-10. Montanans Max Baucus and Jon Tester were the only Democrats to support the amendment. The National Rifle Association (NRA) announced concerns with the amendment on Thursday. But the group took a neutral position on the vote, meaning it will not be used to rank senators in the group’s upcoming vote studies.

By a vote of 91-4, the Senate tabled, and thus killed, another Paul amendment that would restrict the collection of suspicious activity reports to requests from law enforcement.

The overall measure would grant a four-year extension on provisions that allow the government to seek orders from a special court for “any tangible thing” related to a terrorism probe; to obtain roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists who switch modes of communication; and to apply to a special court for surveillance orders on “lone wolf” terrorists who are not connected to any organization.

The Obama administration issued a statement in support of the Senate-passed measure Thursday.

The Senate voted 79-18 earlier Thursday to limit debate on the compromise extension measure. The language was agreed to last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the top Republican in each chamber — House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. wrote to Reid and McConnell on Wednesday warning of the security risks associated with delaying the extension of the three provisions.

“Should the authority to use these critical intelligence tools expire, our nation’s intelligence and law enforcement professionals will have less capability than they have today to detect and thwart terrorist plots against our homeland and our interests abroad,” Clapper wrote.

Other Amendments Set Aside

While much of the focus had been on a disagreement over Paul’s amendments, critics of the Patriot Act (PL 107-56) on the Democratic side had sought consideration of other amendments.

Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., pressed throughout Thursday for consideration of his amendment restricting government surveillance powers, which was based on a measure (S 193) his committee approved earlier this year. Leahy ultimately relented after McConnell objected to a vote on the amendment.

Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she opposed Paul’s gun amendment but also said other senators were likely skittish about voting on it.

“Essentially, you’re saying you can’t get business records of terrorists who are buying guns, which is ridiculous,” Feinstein said. “I think people are concerned with how the NRA scores the vote. I’m not.”

On a separate amendment, Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado wanted to make public the government’s legal interpretation of Patriot Act authorities. “There are two Patriot Acts in America,” Wyden said. “There is the one that people read and it’s in front of them and say this is the text of it. And then there is the secret interpretation of the law.”

Wyden and Udall dropped that amendment in return for a pledge from Feinstein to take up the matter in the Intelligence Committee. Reid also said he would allow a vote later in the year on the amendment if Wyden and Udall were unsatisfied with the Intelligence Committee’s handling of the matter.

Frances Symes contributed to this story.

Obama’s Speech on Middle East and North Africa

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Please, have a seat.  Thank you very much.  I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark -- one million frequent flyer miles.  (Laughter.)  I count on Hillary every single day, and I believe that she will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy.  For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa.  Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights.  Two leaders have stepped aside.  More may follow.  And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.

Today, I want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.

Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts.  After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there.  In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead.  And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr.  He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate –- an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change.  He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy -– not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents.  But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life.  By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia.  On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart.  This was not unique.  It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity.  Only this time, something different happened.  After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years.  In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.  So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country.  Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands.  And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week -- until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise.  The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not.  In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few.  In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn  -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

And this lack of self-determination –- the chance to make your life what you will –- has applied to the region’s economy as well.  Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity.  But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere.  The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism.  Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression.  Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore.  Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil.  Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before.  And so a new generation has emerged.  And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.” 

In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”

In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now.  It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”

In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.” 

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region.  And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily.  In our day and age -– a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication –- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.  But it will be years before this story reaches its end.  Along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days.  In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual.  And as we’ve already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.  For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region:  countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them.  We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks.  We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies.  As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.  Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense.  Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.  I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.  The status quo is not sustainable.  Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity.  We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.  There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity.  Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise.  But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility.  It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome. 

Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.  But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.  (Applause.)  

The United States supports a set of universal rights.  And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders  -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest.  Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific.  First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.  That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high -– as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world’s largest nation.  Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership.  But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence.  The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats.  As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force -– no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help.  Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed.  The message would have been clear:  Keep power by killing as many people as it takes.  Now, time is working against Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country.  The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council.  And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it’s not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power.  Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens.  The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy.  President Assad now has a choice:  He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.  The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests.  It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests.  It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.  Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.

So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression.  And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home.  Let’s remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail.  We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran.  The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory.  And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Now, our opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known.  But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with change that’s consistent with the principles that I’ve outlined today.  That’s true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power.  And that’s true today in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security.  We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. 

Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will -- and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away.  The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.  (Applause.)  The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict.  In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy.  The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security.  Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks.  But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress.  And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region.  Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike.  Our message is simple:  If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. 

We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future -– particularly young people.  We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo -– to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease.  Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths.  And we will use the technology to connect with -– and listen to –- the voices of the people.

For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone.  Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information.  We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -– whether it’s a big news organization or a lone blogger.  In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview.  Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them.  And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.

We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy.  What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent.  Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion.  In

Tahrir Square

, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”  America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them.  In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation.  And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women.  History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered.  And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -– by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office.  The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.  (Applause.)

Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can’t stop there.  So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy. 

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets.  The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family.  Too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change.  Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job.  Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas. 

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people.  In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world.  It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of

Tahrir Square

was an executive for Google.  That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street.  For just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

So, drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance.  The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young.  America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy.  And we’re going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we’ve asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt.  Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year.  And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past.  So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship.  We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation.  And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we’re working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt.  And these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region.  And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa.  If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland.  So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement.  And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.  

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -– the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect.  We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts at anti-corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable.  Politics and human rights; economic reform.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region.  For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.  For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.  Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations.  Yet expectations have gone unmet.  Israeli settlement activity continues.  Palestinians have walked away from talks.  The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate.  Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree.  At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.  That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.  Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.  And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values.  Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.  And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.  But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth:  The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.  Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself.  A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible.  The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action.  No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else.  But endless delay won’t make the problem go away.  What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples:  Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear:  a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.  The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.  The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. 

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat.  Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.  The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.  And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations.  Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.  I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain:  the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.  But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. 

Now, let me say this:  Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table.  In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel:  How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?  And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.  Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be.  Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.  We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones.  That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.”  We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza.  “I have the right to feel angry,” he said.  “So many people were expecting me to hate.  My answer to them is I shall not hate.  Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future.  It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful.  In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests.  In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.”  In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known.  Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar.  Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire.  Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved.  And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” 

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. 

It will not be easy.  There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope.  But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.  And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)  Thank you. 

By Paul M. Krawzak, CQ Staff

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad said Thursday he is further delaying consideration of a fiscal 2012 budget resolution because any spending and tax blueprint for this year is likely to be swept up in broader deficit reduction talks surrounding the debt limit.

The announcement comes more than a month after the traditional April 15 deadline for Congress to adopt a budget and following growing criticism of the delay from Senate Republicans. The House passed its fiscal 2012 budget (H Con Res 34) last month and it is expected to come to a vote in the Senate next week.

“Democrats on the Budget Committee are very close to an agreement,” Conrad said in a written statement. “We will have a budget. But, after broad consultation, we have decided to defer a budget markup because of the high-level bipartisan leadership negotiations that are currently underway.”

The North Dakota Democrat said any proposals that emerge from bipartisan debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “may need to be included in a budget resolution that would be offered in the weeks ahead.”

Congress faces a late-summer vote to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit, and Republicans are demanding major spending cutbacks in exchange for any vote to raise the cap. Many Democrats also want some spending constraints, along with increased taxes to help reduce the government’s budget deficit.

Treasury Department officials say the nation could default on its debt obligations if the debt limit is not raised by Aug. 2.

As precedent, Conrad pointed to budget agreements that were reached in 1990 under President George Bush and 1997 under President Bill Clinton where a budget resolution and reconciliation legislation were used to implement the agreements.

Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, said Democrats are “desperately trying to avoid having to present a budget to the American people. They know that the big spenders in their caucus prevent them from bringing forward a credible plan that both their party and the country can support.”

Redrafted Plan

In recent weeks, Conrad was forced to rework an earlier budget plan aimed at reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade after Vermont independent Bernard Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, charged that it favored the rich and threatened to block its approval in committee.

Conrad rewrote the plan, generating more deficit reduction through tax increases and less through cuts to government programs.

Reacting to Conrad’s announcement, Sanders reiterated his insistence that he would not support any budget unless it requires the wealthiest Americans “to pay their fair share of taxes, and unless we do away with loopholes and tax breaks which enable companies making billions of dollars in profits to evade paying any taxes at all.”

He continued to shape his proposal after conversations with Democratic senators, aiming to produce a plan that would be acceptable to Sanders and other liberals as well as moderates like Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who is opposed to any tax increases in the budget.

Conrad Delays Budget Markup in Deference to Ongoing Debt Talks

Sessions has issued a steady stream of statements slamming Democrats for not producing a budget this year and not adopting one last year. The Budget Committee approved a budget last year, but Senate leaders chose not to put it on the floor for a vote.

Earlier Thursday, all 11 Republicans on the Budget Committee issued a statement criticizing the delay. “Democrats campaigned for the majority,” the statement said. “They asked for the job. To shut down the budget process is a deep disservice to the American electorate.”

One Budget Committee Democrat, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, agreed with Conrad that even though the budget is being delayed, Democrats are “pretty close” to reaching agreement on a plan. “I’m not aware of any major differences in our caucus,” he said.

But Cardin said Democrats hope the Biden commission will produce a bipartisan deficit reduction plan that many also see as a potential vehicle for getting the votes to raise the debt ceiling. “We’re still looking to see whether there’s an opportunity for a bipartisan agreement coming out of the Biden talks, or the group of five and a half or whatever,” he said, referring to what used to be called the Gang of Six until Tom Coburn, R-Okla., quit the group in frustration earlier this week.

Brian Friel contributed to this story.

GOP expected to back Medicare shift

From Congress.org
By CQ Staff

House Republicans appeared likely Friday to adopt a budget resolution that calls for changing Medicare into a voucher program for future seniors — a step many consider political dynamite.

Bucking conventional wisdom, GOP lawmakers are betting voters concerned about the nation’s debt may be willing to entertain changes to the popular social insurance program, especially if those affect only the next generation. Many say that by supporting House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan’s framework for the fiscal 2012 budget, they are showing they are serious about making the decisions necessary to put the nation’s fiscal house in order.

“I think the country’s ripe for looking at renegotiating the Medicare promises for folks under 55,” said K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas.

Request a free trial to CQ Today.

But analysts say voting for the measure (H Con Res 34), which is as good as dead in the Democratic Senate, is a risky move for Republicans. Polls consistently show that Americans do not support transforming Medicare, and a USA Today/Gallup poll on April 11 found that two-thirds of Republicans oppose the governmemt making major changes to the program.

“The Republicans are betting the whole store on that even though people don’t like particular changes, they want something big done about the deficit — and that they’re going to stick with them even though they don’t like the cuts and changes,” said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis in the Harvard University School of Public Health.

Democrats, meanwhile, see the Ryan plan as a political opportunity. They note that voters have rejected past GOP attempts to re-envision entitlement programs, including President George W. Bush’s attempt to change Social Security to a personal account system. And they are pledging to protect Medicare.

“No plan to end Medicare as we know it will ever pass the Senate,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “The debate is a debate we welcome. We’ve been waiting for it. It is a debate we will win.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., painted Ryan’s entire proposal as a way to end the program that provides health care for seniors.

“It’s a smoke screen about balancing the budget. The real goal is to kill Medicare,” Murray said.

A major part of the Republican 2010 campaign was hammering seniors with the message that Democrats were cutting Medicare and proposing “death panels” that might ration care through the health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152).

Observers say Republicans are vulnerable to a similar line of attack in the next election. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) already has announced plans to target potentially vulnerable House GOP members. A Roll Call rating shows that more than a third of House GOP freshmen are from toss-up or Democratic-leaning districts

“If you supported that, you can expect a blizzard of mail and phone calls and emails into your district presenting you as somebody who wants to shut off the Medicare spigot,” said University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato.

Still, House Republicans said late Thursday they felt confident in voting for a budget framework that calls for changing Medicare from a defined-benefit to a defined contribution plan in 2022. The GOP resolution calls for giving seniors and the disabled an annual stipend that would be used to buy private insurance plans of their choice and would increase over time based on the rate of inflation. Critics say the plan would shift a greater share of health care costs to seniors over time.

Some Republicans think they can sell that as a way to preserve the program for future generations and to keep the country fiscally sound.

GOP freshman Lou Barletta said seniors in his district “were more upset about their grandchildren and the debt we were leaving them than the fact of the assistance for themselves.”

“They’re tough and they’ll handle the consequences to themselves, but don’t mess with their grandchildren,” added Barletta, who said his district has one of the biggest senior populations in Pennsylvania. Barletta is one of the Republicans on the DCCC’s list.

Analysts said the crucial, and most challenging, step for Republicans would be convincing voters that the current path would lead to ruin. “They have to paint the picture of a troubled status quo that is no longer sustainable. . . . The status quo is like something on a fault line and we’re having all these earthquakes, and the big one’s going to come,” said Mike Franc, vice president of government studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Franc said that Republicans also must convince voters that there would be negative consequences for future generations if they do not act.

“If they can paint that picture successfully, then they can win this,” Franc said.

Republicans also must also underscore that Ryan’s plan would not change access to fee-for-service Medicare for existing seniors, only those born in 1957 or after.

“If you say, ‘we are going to change the Medicare program to ensure its survival, but none of those changes will affect you,’ that’s a pretty powerful message,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayers.

Of course President Obama refuted many of those arguments on April 13 when he argued the nation could honor its commitments at the same time it controls costs by taking steps to wring additional savings from Medicare.

And some question whether voters will even entertain the idea of putting Medicare on the table, predicting Republicans might vote for the Ryan proposal but then walk away from some of its more far-reaching changes.

“The whole idea of converting Medicare into a kind of voucher system is highly controversial with older voters,” Sabato said. “And it’s not a group you want to take lightly, especially if you’re a Republican.”

Observers were divided on whether Obama’s defense of Medicare hurt or helped Republicans.

Blendon argued the president offered a potentially more palatable proposal. “He gave them something that sounds like a big reduction in the deficit without those kinds of changes or cuts.”

But Ayers contended Obama punted on the big issues.

“The president’s complete unwillingness to address an obvious problem comes across as a blatant lack of leadership,” the GOP pollster said.

Those on both sides agree that Ryan’s proposal all but ensures entitlements will be an important issue during the 2012 presidential campaign.

“It’s going to be difficult for a Republican nominee not to have his or her own plan to address entitlements after the Ryan initiative,” Ayers said.

Link: http://www.congress.org/news/2011/04/15/gop_expected_to_back_medicare_shift#src=db/

Library of Congress Gets Hit Hardest With Cuts

Legislative Branch Spending Slashed Over 2010

By Daniel Newhauser
Roll Call Staff
April 13 2011

The fiscal 2011 spending agreement includes more than $103 million in cuts to Congress’ own budget, which may eventually necessitate some layoffs around Capitol Hill but not the drastic actions that would have been required by other House proposals.

The Republican House has led the charge for spending reductions around the campus and is leading by example with this budget, as more than half of the legislative branch cuts would come from that chamber. The House budget would be reduced by $55 million from 2010 levels in accordance with a January resolution to slice 5 percent from the chamber’s operating costs for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The Senate would abide a net $10 million budget decrease from fiscal 2010, which includes a 5 percent reduction from each office’s allocation.

Around the Capitol campus, nearly every agency’s budget would be reduced, with the exception of the Capitol Police and the Congressional Budget Office.

The police department would get a $12.5 million budget increase, raising their top-line total to $340.8 million to rectify a salary miscalculation that led to a multimillion-dollar budget shortfall last year.

“We’re very happy,” said Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer, who chairs the Capitol Police Board. “It corrects a mistake and doesn’t necessitate any reductions any place.”

The CBO would get an additional
$1.7 million for salaries and expenses to avert layoffs and delays to budget proposals and analyses. Its budget would be $46.9 million.

“In making difficult funding decisions, efforts focused on not requiring the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, and the Congressional Budget Office to furlough employees half way through the fiscal year,” according to a Senate summary of the legislative branch provisions of the bill.

But the Library, which would be forced to absorb a $13.4 million cut from 2010 levels, would be hit the hardest and would likely have to reduce staff.

“The level of funding provided in the [continuing resolution] proposal would require a hiring freeze with no new hires, and core services and products will be delayed as staff levels are reduced,” the Senate summary states. A Library spokeswoman said the agency will soon determine where the cuts will be absorbed.

The Architect of the Capitol would be funded at $587 million, which would ensure Dome repairs would be finished before the 2013 presidential inauguration, according to the Senate release.

The AOC would, however, take a $14.6 million rescission of Capitol Visitor Center construction funds that were not needed and thus not spent, which spokeswoman Eva Malecki said will not affect operations.

The GPO would be cut by more than $12 million, but the bulk would come from the agency’s revolving fund, which spokesman Gary Somerset said will not affect operations. The agency would operate on a $135.3 million budget.

The GAO would avoid layoffs, and with a $547.3 million budget — $9.5 million less than 2010 — it would not have to hand out furloughs either, spokesman Charles Young said.

Link: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_110/Library-Congress-Hit-Hardest-Cuts-204894-1.html/

Deal poses problems for all sides

By BRIAN FRIEL, Congress.org

April 11 2011


The fiscal 2011 spending deal is done. Or is it?

House and Senate leaders still have to persuade rank-and-file lawmakers to clear the agreement, and some will almost certainly find it difficult to swallow.

The agreement reached late April 8 embodies a series of trade-offs that exacted deep domestic spending cuts opposed by Democrats and excluded many policy changes sought by Republicans.

The deal covers more than a trillion dollars in federal programs and a raft of policy issues, so everyone will find something to dislike.

House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, applauded Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, for negotiating historic spending cuts, but said they amounted to “rounding errors,” in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” On the other side, the top Budget Committee Democrat Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” expressed doubt the deal would pass.

Facing such challenges, it’s no surprise that both President Obama and Boehner sought to look beyond this week’s votes to even bigger budgetary battles ahead in urging lawmakers to vote for the spending deal. “This battle is just beginning,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., comparing the new dynamic to the fiscal and policy battles that dominated divided government in the mid-1990s.

This year’s plan was unresolved until an hour and a half before the government was scheduled to begin shutting down. Overall, the package includes $37.7 billion in cuts from previous spending levels, lawmakers and aides said.

Of that amount, $1.1 billion would come from an across-the-board cut spread across discretionary programs with the exception of Pentagon programs. The Defense Department is funded at $513 billion, about $2 billion less than Republicans had proposed. Democrats pushed for deeper cuts, but Republicans drew the line at that figure, an increase over last year’s levels.

Roughly $20 billion of the deal’s cuts come from domestic discretionary programs. Obama accepted about $1.5 billion in cuts to one of his signature efforts, a high-speed rail grant program, but Democrats staved off $1.2 billion in proposed cuts to federal employees’ bonuses and pay beyond a salary freeze that the White House announced previously.

Awaiting full details of the deal, Senate Appropriations Committee member Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., said expected cuts to education and health care programs “will have a significant negative consequence.”

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said April 9 the cuts included $13 billion from the Labor, Education and Health and Human Services departments, as well as $8 billion from foreign affairs programs. Pfeiffer noted small cuts such as $35 million from a crop insurance rebate program and $30 million from a job training program for student loan processors.

But negotiators safeguarded funding for current enrollment levels in Head Start and current levels to maintain maximum awards for needy college students through Pell grants, Pfeiffer said. The National Institutes of Health was spared a $500 million cut to biomedical research, but a planned doubling of funding for research and development at the National Science Foundation and other agencies was scaled back.

To limit the effect of cuts on such social safety-net programs, Democrats pressed for cuts to mandatory spending programs that typically are walled off from the annual appropriations process. A larger-than-expected $17.8 billion comes from such programs.

To increase the top-line spending cuts to a level Boehner could accept, Democratic negotiators in the final hours agreed to more cuts as long as they came from mandatory accounts. It was a cut of $2.5 billion in transportation project funding that got negotiators to the finish line, a Senate Democratic leadership aide said.

House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., wanted to limit mandatory spending cuts to about double the $8.7 billion included in the fiscal 2011 legislation (HR 1) the House passed Feb. 19.

The battle over the mix of spending cuts consumed Republican and Democratic negotiators. Democrats originally pushed for tightening tax breaks, particularly those benefiting the oil and gas industry, but Republicans rebuffed them. The final deal includes 53 percent discretionary and 47 percent mandatory spending cuts, a split that tracks with Democrats’ hopes.

The spending fight was upstaged by a struggle over 65 provisions Republicans wanted to alter, and in some cases end, federal programs. Democrats fought nearly all of the so-called riders and mostly prevailed — a result Boehner will have to help his rebellious freshmen accept.

The package includes no limits on the EPA’s regulatory powers, even though Republicans pressed to stop various restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and mountaintop mining, among others.

Holding a series of votes on April 6 in which similar restrictions failed to muster even a simple majority in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., dealt a death blow to the requested EPA riders. The fight, though, is far from over with Republicans vowing to continue to try to curtail the agency’s regulations on businesses — an effort Democrats will continue to resist.

Republicans were forced to concede their efforts to block funding for Planned Parenthood and the implementation of the 2010 health care overhaul law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152). After intense wrangling, Boehner agreed to exclude those provisions from the final bill in exchange for separate Senate votes on each issue.

The test votes will require a 60-vote threshold, virtually guaranteeing that current funding for implementation of the health care overhaul law and Planned Parenthood will continue, a congressional aide said April 9.

Reid and Obama refused to compromise on Planned Parenthood, and the standoff was a central reason negotiators concluded their work literally in the eleventh hour. The final deal did yield to Republicans on a prohibition on either federal or local funding of abortions in the District of Columbia — reversing a change made in the last Congress that had removed the restriction on local funding.

The fight essentially was a draw, reverting to longstanding federal policy on matters related to the hot-button issue.

On health care, Democrats gave Republicans a fig leaf: funding for various studies on the potential problems in implementing the overhaul. Republicans want ammunition to fight the law, with a study of the effects of the law’s mandates, its impact on insurance premiums, a review of waivers to various organizations from its rules and an examination of research comparing the effectiveness of different types of treatments that is funded in both the law and the 2009 economic stimulus measure (PL 111-5).

House Republicans are just beginning to rev up attacks on last year’s rewrite of financial services (PL 111-203) passed largely with Democratic votes. Though Republicans sought to restrict the power of the law’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the spending deal directs the Government Accountability Office to study the bureau’s operations. As that law takes effect, look for Congress to try anew to resist financial oversight.

On education, the spending deal revives a private school voucher program for District of Columbia students, a signature Boehner goal. That concession by Obama — who had sought to phase out the voucher program — could sour relations between the White House and teachers’ unions already wary of Obama’s embrace of changes to teacher pay and his priority education program to boost college graduation levels know as Race to the Top. His program was largely protected in the deal.

Among other controversial issues addressed in the funding deal likely to meet vigorous resistance in Congress this week:

• A ban on funding to hire more IRS agents to crack down on tax cheats and up revenue. House Republicans succeeded in their attempt to block funding for the administration’s initiative.

• An end to spending for NPR and other public broadcasting services. Republicans lost their effort to block the funding.

• An elimination of funding for a pilot “voucher” program allowing some people to turn down employer-sponsored health insurance in favor of coverage through health insurance exchanges created by the health overhaul. Wyden lambasted the deal for zeroing out funding for the program.

• A curb on funding to put in place regulations dealing with the Federal Communications Commission’s “net neutrality” rules for broadband service providers. Democrats blocked the House Republicans’ proposed restrictions.

• A ban on funding for Education Department rules affecting private for-profit colleges. Republicans wanted to block it, but Democrats won out.

• A bar on funding for a U.N. population program and international family planning. Democrats successfully deflected the Republican drive to zero out the funding.

• A bar on funding to transfer prisoners being held in the Guantánamo Bay detention facility to U.S. facilities for trials in U.S. courts. Republicans got to retain the provision that Democrats deemed “moot” after the Obama administration announced recently it would try detainees in military tribunals at the Cuba facility.

Link: http://www.congress.org/news/2011/04/11/deal_poses_problems_for_all_sides/

Obama to Call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt

By JACKIE CALMES, The New York Times

WASHINGTON April 10 2011 — President Obama will call this week for Republicans to join him in writing a broad plan to raise revenues and reduce the growth of popular entitlement programs, as the battle over the nation’s financial troubles moves past Friday’s short-term budget deal and into a wider and more consequential debate over the nation’s long-term fiscal health.

In a speech to be delivered at a university here on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will in effect come off the sidelines on the debate over reducing the nation’s debt, which is reaching dangerous heights as the population ages.

After months of criticism that he has not led on budget talks, Mr. Obama will urge bipartisan negotiations toward a multiyear debt-reduction plan that administration officials said would depart sharply from the one proposed last week by House Republicans.

The Republican plan includes a shrinking of Medicare and Medicaid and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a more comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers, cuts to military spending, savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and unspecified changes to Social Security.

In his remarks, which come after Friday’s bipartisan deal to cut domestic spending by about $38 billion for the remainder of this budget year, Mr. Obama will not offer details but will set deficit-cutting goals, White House officials said. The numbers were still under discussion on Sunday.

“He’ll lay out his approach this week in terms of the scale of debt reduction he thinks the country needs so we can grow economically and win the future — a balanced approach,” David Plouffe, the senior White House political strategist, said on “Fox News Sunday,” one of four talk shows on which he appeared Sunday.

“Obviously, we need to look at all corners of government,” Mr. Plouffe said, adding, “We’re going to have a big debate.”

Until now, Mr. Obama has avoided prescribing specific changes to entitlement programs like Medicare, beyond those contained in his health care overhaul. Indeed, few of the recommendations made by his own bipartisan fiscal commission were included in the budget he presented to Congress in February.

What is more, while Mr. Obama proposed a five-year freeze on the growth of domestic spending, he recommended increases in education, research, infrastructure and clean-energy programs — emphasizing that although deficit reduction is important, so are investments to create jobs and skilled workers.

The growing debate over federal spending and taxes is certain to ripple from the White House and Congress to the 2012 presidential campaign, helping to shape voters’ assessment of Mr. Obama’s record and challenging rivals for the Republican presidential nomination to respond, even as they court conservative voters who oppose any compromise with Mr. Obama.

Whether anything tangible comes of the debate, it will contrast the parties’ visions of the role of government.

Republicans reacted skeptically to word of Mr. Obama’s speech. “I sit here and I listen to David Plouffe talk about, you know, their commitment to cut spending and knowing full well that for the last two months we’ve had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said on Fox.

The timing of Mr. Obama’s remarks reflects a White House strategy devised late last year after Republicans won their House majority, together with the confluence of four events, two last week and two ahead.

Friday night’s 11th-hour agreement on spending cuts, which averted a government shutdown, removed what had been a distraction for months over this year’s unfinished federal budget. Administration officials said they also hoped that the compromise helped build trust with the House speaker, John A. Boehner, that would carry over to the larger debates about long-term spending and the national debt.

Some lawmakers said Sunday that they opposed the compromise, but leaders in both parties remain confident it will pass in the House and Senate this week.

Also last week came a moment the administration had been awaiting for months: Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, outlined House Republicans’ long-term budget plan.

Mr. Ryan said it would cut $6 trillion in the coming decade, though budget analysts questioned some of the claimed savings. The plan would turn Medicare into a voucher program for future generations and slash spending for the need-based Medicaid program and other domestic initiatives, while largely sparing the Pentagon and cutting $4 trillion more in corporate and high-income taxes.

The White House settled on a strategy in December by which Mr. Obama would wait for the House Republicans to lay down their cards before he proposed major reductions in popular entitlement benefit programs, according to interviews with administration officials at the time.

Mr. Obama’s budget waiting game, however, has helped to fuel widespread criticism by Republicans, pundits and some Democrats that he has failed to lead.

Another impetus to Wednesday’s move is the White House’s belief that a bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators will announce this week that they have reached agreement on a debt-reduction package similar to that of the president’s fiscal commission.

After months of private discussions, the tentative agreement among the three Republican and three Democratic senators would cut military and domestic programs and overhaul the tax code, eliminating popular tax breaks but using the new revenues to lower income-tax rates and reduce annual deficits. It would be the model, if not in all details, for Mr. Obama’s own goals, Democratic officials say.

Perhaps the biggest prod for Mr. Obama to act, however, is the need for Congress to vote to raise the legal limit on the federal debt, now $14.25 trillion. The government will hit that limit on its borrowing authority in as few as five weeks, the Treasury Department has said. Without an increase by early July, the government cannot continue to make payments on its existing debt, potentially forcing it into an economy-shaking default.

Speaking on Saturday in Connecticut, Mr. Boehner said Republicans would not agree to raise the cap “without something really, really big attached to it.”

Unlike the recent spending-cut negotiations, in which Mr. Obama was not active until the final days, “he knows he has to take a greater role from the beginning” on the debt-limit measure and any companion plan for reducing debt, said an adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Several presidential advisers interviewed in recent weeks said Mr. Obama has been torn between wanting to propose major budget changes to entice Republicans to the bargaining table, including on Social Security, and believing they would never agree to raise revenues on upper-income Americans as part of a deal.

Three House Republican leaders, including Mr. Ryan, were on the fiscal commission; unlike the three Senate Republicans, they opposed the recommendations because they raised revenues and did not cut enough from health care.

The risk to Mr. Obama includes further alienating liberals in his own party. Progressive groups have formed coalitions to oppose any changes to Social Security, for instance.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/us/politics/11deficit.html/