Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont; and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma were among the legislation’s 19 co-sponsors. They were joined by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, in voting for it today.

From Stark:

“Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.Con.Res. 248 to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

“Despite the wishes of the people who voted him into office, President Obama is escalating the War in Afghanistan. It’s now up to Congress to end the war. This resolution would invoke the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and remove troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of the year.

“This war has no clear objective. We have spent $258 billion on the War in Afghanistan, with billions more to come this year. American soldiers and their families are paying a greater price. Over 1,000 soldiers have died, and over 5,000 have been wounded in action. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch, and other humanitarian organizations, tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed.

“It is time for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and bring our troops home. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this resolution. War will never stabilize Afghanistan. We must turn to diplomacy and infrastructure development to achieve stability in Afghanistan.”

From Miller:

“We need to move in a new direction in Afghanistan. Today, I again registered my opposition to the current US policy in Afghanistan by voting for Mr. Kucinich’s war powers resolution. While we know it isn’t feasible for American troops to leave Afghanistan in the time allotted in the resolution, by voting for it I am sending a clear message to President Obama and my colleagues that we need to move in a new direction in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was one of five Republicans (the others included Rep. John Campbell, R-Irvine) to vote for the legislation. From Paul:

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, issued a statement saying she had voted against the resolution “with a heavy heart.” See her full explanation after the jump…

“I have serious reservations about the presence of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. I opposed the President’s plan to send additional troops into that country, and I opposed funding for the surge. I was reassured when the President said that he wanted to begin withdrawing U.S. troops beginning in 2011. I joined 137 of my colleagues to vote with Representative McGovern to demand that the President provide a plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan, and have been deeply concerned that the mission for our troops there is not clear. If their mission is not well defined, how can we expect to judge success?

“I do not support an open-ended commitment without clear goals. But I also cannot support a sudden withdrawal without a plan to protect American lives and American interests. And that’s why I will vote against this Resolution.

“This Resolution directs the President to remove all U.S. forces from Afghanistan 30 days from adoption, unless the President decides it is not safe to do so. He would then have until the end of 2010 to remove all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

“This language is absolute and provides no exceptions.

“It does not provide exceptions for U.S. forces that might be necessary to safeguard U.S. embassy personnel.

“It does not provide exceptions for our intelligence community or Special Forces so they can continue to support Afghanistan and Pakistan in the search for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

“It does not provide exceptions for U.S. military personnel who are engaged in training the Afghanistan National Army or Afghanistan National Police to provide their own security.

“We should not be involved in a civil war in Afghanistan, but there are a few, limited missions in Afghanistan that may be necessary to protect our national interests. This Resolution does not allow us any flexibility to address those missions, and this is why I cannot support a policy that endangers the lives of U.S. personnel on the ground and allow Al Qaeda to continue to destabilize the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and potentially strike us here at home.

“I hope Representative Kucinich will refine his legislation and work with the President to present us with a plan to bring our troops home safely and in a timely manner.”

UPDATE @ 4:15 P.M.: Here’s what Lee had to say…

They still can’t give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees, but they can now put as much money as they want, whenever they want into “independent expenditures” for or against a candidate. Critics say the ruling let moneyed special intetests do as they please to drown out dissenting opinions.

For example, Courage Campaign Executive Director Rick Jacobs said that the court not only has “announced that democracy is for sale to the highest bidder,” but that Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence indicates a desire to eliminate campaign finance disclosure laws, too – and he used California as an example…

Amici’s examples relate principally to Proposition 8, a state ballot proposition that California voters narrowly passed in the 2008 general election. Proposition 8 amended California’s constitution to provide that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount of his contributions.
[snip]
Disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights.
[snip]
Now more than ever, [disclosure and disclaimer rules] will chill protected speech because – as California voters can attest – “the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.
[snip]
I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’”

Today’s majority chose to leave disclosure requirements in place, but Jacobs said Thomas’ take “is extremely troubling. His opinion effectively attempts to hide the true beliefs and intentions of the forces behind Proposition 8 from the American public. This can only help the many anti-equality organizations seeking to use unlimited financial resources to take away fundamental rights at the ballot box. We aren’t going to let them get away with it.”

“The Courage Campaign is participating in the boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego, partly in response to Doug Manchester’s large donations to the effort to get Proposition 8 on the ballot,” Jacobs continued. “We believe that such actions are a form of protected speech and are legitimate politics. We intend to launch other, similar campaigns against corporations that try to use their wealth to distort our democracy.”

Lots more California feedback on the Supreme Court’s decision, after the jump…

From Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove:

“To suggest that corporations should have a limitless ability to finance elections is one of the most disturbing Supreme Court rulings in recent memory. Today the Supreme Court essentially ruled that corporations have most of the same constitutional rights as human beings. What next? Do they have the right to vote? Do they have the right to marry?

“Large corporations in America already have far too much influence over our public discourse, and there should be no doubt that bottomless corporate accounts can crowd out the free speech of individual Americans. This ruling even permits businesses controlled by foreign governments to spend as much money as they want influencing American elections.

“I have begun discussions with my Congressional colleagues to see if there is anything we can do curtail the damage to our country that will result from this ruling.”

From Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto:

“It is an unfortunate truism that candidates who raise the most money win elections. By allowing corporations unlimited access to their wallets, the Supreme Court today has undermined the principle of the ‘will of the people’ in favor of the ‘will of the corporation.’ Corporations do not vote for candidates – people do. We need to limit, not expand, the perceived and real influence of corporate money in politics and the distrust that perception breeds. Throughout my political career I’ve worked to stem this influence and I’m deeply saddened by today’s ruling.

“It was a hard fought struggle to enact the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court has upheld this law for years. With this decision, the Supreme Court has thumbed its nose at precedent, at the Congress, and most importantly the will of the people. This is an enormous step in the wrong direction.”

From Daniel Newman, executive director of Berkeley-based money-in-politics watchdog group MAPLight.org:

“A river of money underlies all decisions in Congress and in Sacramento. This week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United v FEC case means this river will flood further with corporate campaign donations. We will still be electing the best fundraisers, rather than the best leaders.
“MAPLight.org’s research has repeatedly shown that politicians’ relentless fundraising has a payoff to the interest groups that provide the funds. We find that on issue after issue, how lawmakers vote aligns with the interest groups that fund their campaigns. …
[snip]
“Do legislators vote a certain way because they received money, or do they receive money because they vote certain way? Either way, interest groups are still buying votes. Even in cases where a legislator does not change his or her views, legislators favorable to industry interests raise more money to campaign, to conduct polls, to buy ads, and to get elected. Congress, and Sacramento, are bought and biased in favor of the interest groups that fund campaigns, even if no individual politician changes their beliefs or their vote.”

UPDATE @ 11:57 A.M. FRIDAY: California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring just now issued his statement on the court’s ruling:

“We are very pleased the U.S. Supreme Court is moving in the direction of more freedom and less restriction when it comes to Americans expressing themselves in politics, whether individually or collectively. Yesterday’s decision was a good one.

“Yet, until the Court revisits the draconian limits the McCain-Feingold law places on political parties engaged in activity unrelated to federal contests, the net effect of the decision is to bias the political system in favor of corporate and labor union independent expenditures, and away from open, democratically governed political parties.

“This is an important distinction. Political parties in America are broad based, democratically governed, and far more transparent in their operation than so-called independent expenditure committees. A system which is rightly open to independent expenditures by not-for-profits, corporations and labor unions is just, but discriminating against open and democratically governed political parties is wrong.

“This principle is at the core of our legal challenge to current federal law in RNC/CRP vs. FEC, which is now before a three judge panel in the District of Columbia. We expect our case to be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court within a year, and look to the court to both open the political system further while ending the accidental bias against Americans engaging in political speech through political parties.”

“We have the opportunity and the responsibility to confront catastrophic global warming with bold action. Congress should seize that opportunity by passing legislation that would end our addiction to fossil fuels, prove our leadership to the world, and build a foundation for long-term prosperity. This legislation falls short of these goals,” Stark — who in January introduced the Save Our Climate Act, which would impose a tax on carbon-based fossil fuels to slow climate change — said in his floor statement today. “Many have said that this vote is a historic one that we will be judged by. In my view, history will judge this legislation as a missed opportunity.”

Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, is a House Energy and Commerce Committee member who authored four of the bill’s provisions: to spur development of a more effective electric grid; to encourage electric vehicle use; to fund clean energy job training programs; and to promote water efficiency and reduce energy consumption by codifying the WaterSense program, which promotes voluntary labeling of water-efficient products and services. He was proud as a papa Friday.

“With the passage of this legislation we are one step closer to revitalizing our nation’s economy and cutting our dependence on foreign oil,” he said in a news release. “I am proud to support this groundbreaking bill that will benefit generations of Americans and lay the foundation for our country’s long-term economic prosperity.”

McNerney said he spent more than two decades working on clean energy technology before going to Congress, and this bill will help ensure that clean-energy jobs will stay in America. The bill also is “crucial to our national security,” he said. “For too long, we’ve been dependent on energy from foreign and sometimes hostile countries. When we’re developing new energy technologies here at home, we’ll be safer for it. We’ll also ensure cleaner, healthier air for our children and grandchildren by leading the world in addressing the threat of climate change.”

More reactions to the vote, after the jump…

From Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Martinez:

“Today’s vote represents a monumental step forward in our effort to build a vibrant and green economy based on clean energy, less foreign oil, and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Californians have led the nation in breaking our dependence on fossil fuels and have always known that the future belongs to clean energy technology jobs. It is long past time for us to stop sending our national treasure to pay for foreign oil. This bill gives us the opportunity to follow California’s lead and move America in a new energy direction.

“The provisions in this bill will drive energy costs down for consumers and families in the long run and will create millions of clean energy jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. And, in a very important step, under our bill American workers will be able to take advantage of opportunities that will help them transition into the new sustainable careers of the future.”

From Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto:

“The nation is ready for us to act and today we will fulfill our duty and responsibility to our country by addressing our reliance on fossil fuels and how it jeopardizes our national security and our planet. The bill will move the U.S. into a global leadership position and create a new sector to our national economy … a clean energy sector … creating new jobs and new growth for American workers. It will spur new sources of energy – solar, wind, and geothermal – and it will spur new energy savings through new energy efficiency standards.

“Through the American Clean Energy and Security Act, there will be an investment of $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiencies, creating jobs, and spurring on new industries. In my home district of Silicon Valley, dozens of innovative companies at the cutting edge of clean energy technology are poised to create a thriving green industry providing healthy, sustainable economic growth in our region. These companies are looking to the future and see the opportunities that will be created by passing this bill.”

From Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger:

“Fighting climate change is the number one environmental challenge facing this generation, and the only way to realize real reductions in our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions is through a firm cap. California has led the nation and the world in developing market-oriented programs to achieve our environmental goals while boosting jobs and protecting consumers, and our efforts have laid the groundwork for a national climate change program like the one voted on today.

“Although this bill is not perfect, it is a significant step in the national fight against climate change and it puts the United States in a position of leadership in international climate negotiations that must produce a global solution to this global problem. My Administration will work with the Senate and President Obama to improve and strengthen this legislation so that it achieves its goals while boosting economic growth and I commend the House of Representatives for taking this historic step today.”

From Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma:

“As a mother and grandmother, the health of our earth is at the top of my list of concerns so that my kids and grandkids aren’t left with the messes we’ve created. For too long, we have ignored the warning signs that human activity is having a negative impact on our environment. It’s up to us to change our ways, use our brains, and stop our bad behavior.

“The facts are clear. The time for debate on whether or not global climate changes exists is over. What we need to do now, is address the problem before it’s too late. We need to listen to the world scientific community, and act immediately to curb our carbon emissions. That’s why I support H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

“The single most important part of this bill is that it puts in place the federal structure to, for the first time, seriously regulate carbon emissions that are adversely affecting our climate. And with proper oversight and science – with the right people in charge – this bill will do what we.

“Now, it’s never easy to change the status quo. There’s a lot of money out there for people who would continue the practices that we know are harmful to all of us. And we all know how that money can be used to muddy the issues and derail the will of the people.

“The plain fact of the matter is this: Without this bill, without a strict regime for controlling carbon emissions, big oil and big coal win. And the environment, endangered species, our kids, our grandkids, you, and I will be the losers.

“Now, people point to China and India, and all the carbon they emit as a big problem too, and they’re right. But the United States leads the world in carbon emissions and, as the world leader, it’s our responsibility to lead the world in a new direction. The burden falls on America to set the tone. By instituting a cap and trade system, we are showing the rest of the world that we’re serious about addressing the issue, and proving to them that it can be done.

“I’m not willing to risk our future by doing nothing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, take a stand, and lead the world in addressing the issue of global climate change.”

The House passed the bill late Tuesday on a 226-202 vote. Here’s how the Bay Area delegation voted:

No: Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; Pete Stark, D-Fremont; Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough; Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma; Mike Honda, D-San Jose; Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose

Yes: George Miller, D-Martinez; Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton; Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco

The 32 Democrats voting against the bill did so mainly for anti-war reasons, while most of the 170 Republicans who opposed it did so because the bill included more than $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund. The bill passed overwhelmingly last month, but changes in conference committee led to an intense battle to get it through again.

Here’s what Lee had to say about it:

“I cannot support any funding for Iraq that was not dedicated solely for the redeployment of our troops and military contractors. I am also unable to support the open ended military escalation in Afghanistan. We need a better balance between humanitarian and military spending in Afghanistan and we need an exit strategy. The supplemental appropriations bill does not reflect a fundamental shift in direction. Therefore, I cannot support it.”

And here’s what Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said:

“Our men and women in uniform deserve far, far better than to be treated like this. Republicans supported a troop funding bill last month, and we are prepared to do so once again. But this is a politically-motivated stunt that uses troop funding as bait for a global bailout that should be judged on its own merits in its own legislation. Let’s give our troops the resources they need for victory in a real troop funding bill free of a costly global bailout.”

Strange bedfellows indeed.

Some liberal bloggers are singling Miller out for heat, because he’s among Democrats who voted against the war funding last month “when their votes stood no chance of actually blocking the funding” but voted for it Tuesday, as AfterDowningStreet.org’s David Swanson put it. Swanson described this group as “the Hall of Shame. These Congress members voted No for show when it didn’t matter, and voted Yes to fund wars when it came to crunch time.”

Elsewhere, the Down With Tyranny blog called Miller “another progressive who let pressure get to him and has now jumped the fence and is voting for more war.”

Miller, a close political ally of Pelosi, explained his shifting vote to the Chronicle:

“I understand the deep frustrations regarding this bill; I’ve voiced them myself and have consistently voted against the war,” Miller said. “I don’t support the war in Iraq, and I want to bring it to a close. I registered my concern, but now it is time to give President Obama what he believes he needs to make progress. This bill is part of the price of cleaning up the mess of the failed policies from the previous administration.”

It’s worth noting that the progressive community was split on this: Although lots of left-leaning groups opposed the bill, some significant heavyweights – including the Campaign for America’s Future, the Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, Moveon.org, Talking Points Memo, and True Majority – didn’t.

Most Bay Area House members, unsurprisingly, opposed it: Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; George Miller, D-Martinez; Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough; Mike Honda, D-San Jose; Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; and Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma. Voting for the bill were Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton; and Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, while Pete Stark, D-Fremont, was absent.

I spoke a few minutes ago with McNerney, who said that as far as Iraq goes, he supports the additional funding so long as President Obama follows through with his timeline for drawing down troops there.

Afghanistan, McNerney said, is “a little bit more complicated, a little more difficult – I’m very concerned about what’s happening over there. … The president has a good team over there and I want to see him have an opportunity to carry out an acceptable outcome.”

More commentary, after the jump…

From Woolsey, the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ co-chairwoman:

“Madam Speaker, I rise today with grave concerns about the measure before us. This supplemental funding bill will sink us further into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The cost of the supplemental is just too great. Without a redeployment plan, our endless military presence will only serve to fuel anti-Americanism throughout the region and promote instability.

“Sadly, Members were not provided a chance to remedy this situation. Proposals provide accountability and transparency from my colleagues Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern, and John Tierney won’t have the chance to get an up or down vote on the floor.

“The American people deserve better than this. I urge my colleagues to oppose this funding and promote a foreign policy based on smart security – humanitarian assistance, development, and diplomacy.”

From House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio:

“Our men and women in uniform deserve our support as they defend our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislation provides that support by ensuring our troops have the resources they need for victory without including politically-motivated restrictions meant to hamstring our commanders in the field. As the legislation moves to the Senate, it should be kept free of unrelated spending or language to undermine our troops so we can get this bill to the President’s desk as quickly as possible.

“I am pleased that $80 million in funding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison was removed from this bill. It deserved to be removed, because the Administration still has not detailed a plan for what to do with the 200-plus terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Republicans – and an overwhelming majority of the American people – believe they should not be imported into the United States, and that is why we have introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act. The legislation would ensure terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison are not transferred or released into our communities. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the legislation and work for its vote in the House.”

UPDATE @ 3:44 P.M.: From Miller:

“I continue to be deeply troubled by the lack of cooperation and support by our allies in the effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan and I am deeply troubled by the continued corruption within the Pakistani military. My vote against the supplemental appropriations bill should be interpreted as a sign of my desire to see our Administration do far more to win cooperation and support from our allies and to route out corruption within the Pakistani military.”

UPDATE @ 4:20 P.M.: From Lee:

“I opposed the 2001 resolution authorizing the use of force because I believed it gave President Bush and any future President an open ended blank check to wage war anywhere on the globe, starting in Afghanistan. Today, nearly eight years later, I oppose the supplemental appropriations bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because it continues us down the wrong path and can lead to war without end.

“Specifically, I opposed the bill because it favors military activities over diplomatic, development, and reconstruction efforts by a ratio of 9 to 1. Afghanistan will not be stabilized through military might. As noted by the Carnegie Endowment, ‘the presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.’

“The bill does not include an exit plan for Afghanistan. In committee I offered an amendment that would have ensure we have in place an exit plan in the event our objectives for that country prove to be unattainable, unrealistic, or too costly in blood and treasure.

“Additionally, it does not require the fully funded redeployment of troops out of Iraq within 12 months, the LEE Amendment would have corrected this problem but was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

“It does not prohibit ‘drone’ attacks. These unmanned aerial attacks don’t help us because they cause high level of civilian casualties and alienate the population we are trying to help.

“Finally, the bill does not include the strong regional approach the situation demands, nor does it provide for a strong nuclear non proliferation strategy in Pakistan.

“President Obama is correct in saying that ‘we should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in’ — that’s good advice for Iraq and great advice for Afghanistan. The best way to help the Afghan people develop a stable and functioning state is to decrease our military presence and increase our use of diplomatic, development, and reconstruction activities.

“The supplemental appropriations bill does not reflect a new direction. Therefore, I could not vote for it.”

From Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton:

“I’ve heard from many people that have had their credit card interest rate sky-rocket without due notice or explanation. At a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet, they shouldn’t have the additional worry of a sudden hike in their interest rate or unexpected fees without notice. This bill will help protect Americans from these unfair practices.”

More from the Bay Area delegation, after the jump…

From Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez:

“At a time when families are struggling economically and are increasingly dependant on their credit cards, major credit card companies should not be allowed to continue to play games with cardholder due dates and misleading information. Americans deserve and need common sense control over their credit cards so they can make the best and most responsible choices for their families and meet their borrower obligations. I’m pleased so many House members voted in favor of protecting Americans from deceitful and dishonest credit card activities and I hope the Senate will follow suit shortly and pass this bill as well.”

From Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland:

“I believe that the critical protections contained in this legislation will strengthen the regulations issued by the Federal Reserve and I strongly support its passage. However, I am concerned that during these incredibly difficult and challenging economic times, our constituents are increasingly being squeezed with egregious fees and dubious business practices by the very banks that their tax dollars have been bailing out.

“The newspapers are rife with stories about consumers being gouged by banks that have suddenly jacked up interest rates on their credit cards, imposed new monthly service charges or reduced credit limits with little or no explanation. In most cases these tactics are being used on consumers, who although they carry a balance from month to month, pay their bills on time and make at least their minimum payment. We’ve also heard countless stories of bait and switch tactics by credit card companies who suddenly raise interest rates because a consumer is a few days late in paying another creditor.

“Years ago, I worked with now Senator Sanders on legislation to address this practice of so called ‘universal default’. I’m pleased that language is in this bill, but it is critical that the protections banning this practice are put into place immediately.

“Originally this bill contained a three month window following the date of enactment to allow banks to adjust their systems and comply with the law. However, the bill that we have now before us would allow these practices to continue as much as 1 year after the enactment of this bill, or June 30, 2010 – whichever comes first. I am concerned that this one year delay incentivizes the banks to accelerate the use of these egregious tactics to ensure that they can reap the maximum amount of money possible from our constituents.

“The fact is that the banks know the handwriting is on the wall. They are boosting up fees and rates on consumer now. The longer we wait to ban these practices the more our constituents will suffer. To me and many people across this country, that is outrageous and unacceptable.

“If they can raise interest rates on credit card holders overnight for no reason whatsoever, then they should be able to comply with these restrictions in an equally swift manner. More importantly, if we can take extraordinary measures to bailout the banking industry for their greed and mismanagement, the least we can do is ensure that they don’t fleece our constituents with higher rates and fees.”

From Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto:

“The Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights will help stimulate the economy by putting more dollars in the hands of consumers and not into the coffers of major credit card companies. These companies will no longer be allowed to penalize cardholders who pay on time, or shift allocation of payments to maximize interest rates. Congress has already taken urgent steps to bail out our financial system. It’s time to throw a life preserver to families struggling to tread water in the rising tide of consumer debt. There’s no doubt in my mind that America must go on a ‘credit diet,’ but two-thirds of our national economy is based on consumer spending, making credit cards, how they are used and what people are charged in that usage, very important.

“Good, stable credit card customers have watched as their existing balances triple and even quadruple — without warning and without justification. Today, Congress has the opportunity to bring equity and rationale to our credit card system and provide immediate financial relief to millions of Americans.”

From Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma:

“All across our country families are struggling right now. Many have seen their home values plummet, others have had loved ones lose their jobs, and almost all families are facing steep declines in their savings and retirement accounts. The last thing that they should have to deal with is some irresponsible credit card company preying on their vulnerability.

“This is a common sense bill that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It will provide consumers with the information and protections that they need to take responsibility for their own finances, and prevent card companies from taking advantage of them.”

“Stanford has come really close a few times during the NCAA tournament over the past decade, but the word ‘close’ doesn’t translate to ‘champion’ in any language,” Courtney smack-talked. “The UConn Huskies women are five-time champions with the hunger for another big win, and this is certainly their year after another undefeated season.”

“As a Connecticut native, I have a soft spot for the UConn Huskies, but the Stanford women have my 1000% support and confidence,” Eshoo retorted. “Just as in last year’s tournament, Stanford will be the victor in this game. Stanford always finishes strong and this is their year to take the championship.”

If Stanford wins, Courtney will provide a gift basket of salami from Rein’s Deli in Vernon, Conn.; lemonade from The Farmer’s Cow; wine from the Colchester Vineyard; maple syrup from Hebron, Conn.; Munson’s Chocolate UConn Husky chocolate bars; locally farmed honey; and cigars from Jarmoc Farms in Enfield, Conn.

If UConn wins, Eshoo is on the hook for a gift basket of 14th Congressional District wine and Coastside artichokes.

From Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont:

“This budget clearly distinguishes the priorities of the new Congress and President Obama—jobs, universal health care, and a first rate education system—from the misplaced priorities of past Republican budgets—tax cuts for the wealthy, war, and an eviscerated safety net. I urge all of my colleagues to embrace priorities that put the health and wellbeing of people ahead of the narrow interests of the well connected and support this budget.”

From Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez:

“We have taken a critical step in approving President Obama’s historic economic plan, a plan that paves the way for historic investments in education, health care, and clean energy. The President’s budget would have a dramatic impact on Bay Area families and working people throughout our country who are not only struggling in today’s deep recession, but who are yearning for a new direction in America.

“I am proud of what this economic plan would do for our youngest children and students of all ages. We’re building on the historic investments we just provided America’s schools in the recovery bill intended to stave of layoffs and improve education. This budget goes the next step to provide sufficient funds for education to really achieve greatness in our public education system.

“We finally have real leadership in the White House, and if Congress goes along with this plan, the President will lead our nation to prosperity, security and greatness.”

More after the jump…

From Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto:

“This budget represents a sea change for America. It is the blueprint for a sustained economic recovery for our country’s future, making historic investments in health care reform, education, science, and energy independence which will create jobs today and establish the foundation for prosperity for the next generation of Americans. It’s a return to fiscal responsibility, cutting the deficit by nearly two-thirds and reducing taxes for middle class families. It also tells the truth about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

[snip]

“This budget is a sound economic plan and it represents the highest American values. It reverses eight years of neglect of our nation’s most critical priorities – health care, energy, science, and education – while putting the federal government back on a path of fiscal sanity.”

And, for some counterpoint, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio:

“So if you look at a budget it’s always called an outline, a road map. Well I have a description of what this budget is – it’s called a road map to disaster. As I said earlier this year we’re going to be the party of better solutions. We clearly are not in agreement with the Democrat budget. Paul Ryan, my colleague from Wisconsin and the members of the budget committee on our side of the aisle have put together a better solution that has less spending, that has less taxes and has much less debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.

“As I said before, previous generations have made tough decisions. Tough decisions to ensure their kids and grandkids will have a brighter future. The budget presented by the majority doesn’t make those decisions. There’s no question our budget does require us to make tough decisions. We actually deal with the issue of entitlements, which is important for us to deal with because there’s no way to balance the budget and begin to reduce the debt unless you begin to look at these entitlement programs where our generations made promises to ourselves that our kids and grandkids can’t afford.”

“I’m grateful that Chairman Barney Frank committed to a public hearing on the issue of public funds lost due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers,” Eshoo said in a news reelase. “This is progress and I’m hopeful that San Mateo County and other public entities will be able to recover some of the dollars invested in conservative instruments. Our schools, public safety, and social services will suffer if we cannot return a portion of these dollars back to our local governments.”

Speier noted Lehman Brothers was the only large financial institution allowed to fail, and its failure cost state and local governments more than $2 billion. “I’m grateful that Chairman Frank has agreed to hold hearings on this important matter and I look forward to finding a solution that returns some of these taxpayer funds back to the public entities where they belong.”

San Mateo County officials in the meeting included Supervisor Rich Gordon, Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson and Deputy County Manager Mary McMillan. County officials also met with the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and House and Senate finance committee members.

“I am pleased that the House approved the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act. This is one component of a very large effort to stabilize the housing market and limit the number of home foreclosures in California and across the country,” she said in a statement issued this afternoon. “Accessible and sustainable loan modifications are essential to getting millions of families the tools they need to stay in their homes.”

Her news release said she “played a leading role in improving the bill, which is a key part of President Obama’s Making Home Affordable program, so that homeowners can first and foremost access a loan modification plan and, allowing homeowners in the most dire of circumstances, to seek relief through bankruptcy as a last resort.” She also “inserted language into the bill to prevent homeowners who can afford their loans from abusing the system by filing for bankruptcy just to capitalize on falling real estate prices,” the release said.

Other, more liberal Bay Area House members gave the bill similarly rosy reviews. Read ‘em, plus the GOP’s take, after the jump…

From Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman Barbara Lee, D-Oakland:

“The roots of the current economic crisis are grounded in the housing market and the greedy lending practices of the banks. Many of us warned about this impending housing crisis years ago. As a member of the Financial Services committee for eight years, I remember expressing my concern about the housing bubble and the subprime loans that were fueling it and the consequences to our economy if the bubble popped.

“But our warnings fell on deaf ears. When we tried to encourage the banks to participate in voluntary foreclosure prevention programs to help families in distress, they balked and made every excuse to avoid participating.

“Then the economy tanked and they begged us for a bail out. Now millions more families are threatened with bankruptcy and foreclosure. That’s why we are taking this step today, to restore some equity to our bankruptcy laws to allow judicial modifications of mortgages on primary residences and to help keep families in their homes.

“I applaud the improvements to the Hope for Homeowners program that are also included in this legislation. We had to address the low rate of participation in this voluntary program and I know that the improvements included here will provide many more homeowners with a way to work out new, affordable mortgages and to continue making their mortgage payments.

“Passing this bill will be an important step in stabilizing the housing markets because not only will we help families protect their homes and their assets during this economic crisis, we will strengthen our entire banking system by making permanent the increase in the FDIC insurance limits to $250,000. This will protect the savings of every American and will increase confidence in the banking systems both here and abroad.”

From Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairwoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma:

“Across the country millions of hard working families are facing foreclosure, and every day we’re seeing this crisis’ increasing impact here in Marin and Sonoma counties. The dream of homeownership is turning into a nightmare for local families, and many more have seen steady declines in their home’s value. This crisis threatens all of us, our neighbors, and our communities. Foreclosed properties drag down the values of nearby homes, leading to a decrease in tax revenue for local governments who are already struggling to provide basic services such as adequate police and fire protection.”

[snip]

“Stabilizing home values is essential to keeping people in their homes, restoring our economy and stopping this current freefall. That’s why this legislation is so important. It provides a positive approach to confronting what is really a major challenge for both borrowers and lenders, and works with President Obama’s plan to get our housing market up and running again.”

From Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto:

“The collapse of the subprime mortgage market has put millions of families in danger of losing their homes. This bill will help those struggling to pay their mortgage in rough economic times, and will not cost the taxpayer a single dollar. The legislation will decrease the number of foreclosures by 20% and help put a floor on plummeting home prices.”

From House Minority Leader John Boehner, D-Ohio:

“Owning a home is the heart and soul of the American Dream, and Republicans believe that we need to help families who acted responsibly stay in their homes. But this legislation doesn’t do that. What it really does is punish those who played by the rules to subsidize those who didn’t. Democrats even defeated a Republican proposal that would have protected taxpayers from bailing out those who lied on their mortgage applications. No wonder we are seeing more and more ‘taxpayer tea parties’ taking place all across America. Taxpayers are fed up with what they are seeing in Washington.

“This legislation forces taxpayers to reward irresponsible behavior – including lying about income on a mortgage application – and will prolong the housing crisis. By letting bankruptcy judges rewrite a mortgage through the controversial ‘cramdown’ process, it gives a pass to the small percentage of borrowers who made bad decisions and adds more uncertainty to a market that desperately needs some stability. This will undermine measures taken to unfreeze credit and will lead to higher mortgage costs for all borrowers.

“Nine out of every 10 homeowners are playing by the rules and making their payments. Republicans believe those who acted responsibly and need help should get it, but we should not bail out scam artists by forcing taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior. It’s time for Democrats and Republicans to work together on a better solution to preserve the American Dream for those who play by the rules.”