Latest News

Joe Biden On Bank Of America: 'At A Minimum, They Are Incredibly Tone Deaf'

2011-10-06T14:31:35Z

WASHINGTON -- With protests against economic injustice continuing in New York City and spreading across the country, Vice President Joe Biden said on Thursday that he can't blame people for feeling "frustrated" and criticized Bank of America's new debit card fees as the type of "tone deaf" move that the public is angry about.

"You can't blame the American people for feeling an overwhelming sense of frustration at this moment, when they're hanging on by their fingernails, and all of a sudden, [the banks] come along and say, 'Okay, even though we're going to make a healthy profit next year, we think we have to have this additional income coming in,'" said Biden in a speech at the Washington Ideas Forum at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

Biden was referring to Bank of America's announcement that it will be charging customers a $5 monthly fee to use their debit cards. The bank argues the move was necessary after Congress passed legislation, championed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), that reduced the amount of money banks could charge businesses each time a debit card is swiped.

"At a minimum, they are incredibly tone deaf. At a minimum," added Biden. "At a maximum, they are not -- they are not -- paying their fair share of the bargain here, and middle class people are getting killed."

Biden also commented on the Occupy Wall Street protests, saying the rallies are happening primarily because the "bargain has been breached with the American people" -- and they have a right to be angry.

"The core is the American people do not think the system is fair or on the level. That is the core of what you're seeing on Wall Street," he said. "There's a lot in common with the Tea Party. The Tea Party started why? TARP. They thought it was unfair, we're bailing out the big guys. What are the people up on the other side of the spectrum saying? The same thing."

Moderator David Gregory, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked whether it was justifiable for Bank of America to implement the new fee, since the administration is imposing more regulations on the financial industry and banks still need to figure out a way to make a profit. Biden rejected his assertion, comparing banks to a kid without a license stealing a car.

"That's a little bit like saying to my kid -- I say, 'Here's the deal now. I not only don't want you driving a car when you don't have a license, and I've now caught you and I'm stopping you from doing that.' And my son says, 'Well I can't do that anymore, so now I've got to steal a car. I've got to get around somehow,'" said Biden.

On Wednesday, also speaking at the Washington Ideas Forum, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Wall Street's frosty relationship with and lack of gratitude toward President Obama was "inexplicable," given that the administration implemented policies that saved the financial industry from a crisis of its own creation.

Biden framed the argument a bit differently, saying it's the American people, not the administration, that Wall Street should be thanking and helping to lift up out of tough economic times.

"The American people know ... the reason the CEO of Bank of America or any other body in that business is in the business is because they -- that guy making 50,000 bucks -- bailed him out. Bailed him out. Put his financial security on the line when his government said, 'We're going to come up with a trillion plus dollars to bail him out,'" said Biden.

"Then [the banks] turn around and they say, by the way, we're projected only to make ... $17 billion next year, but you know what? The middle-class folks, these guys with these debit cards, are on their back, and we're going to charge them 5 bucks more to use their debit card."

Joe Biden On Bank Of America: 'At A Minimum, They Are Incredibly Tone Deaf'

2011-10-06T14:31:35Z

Biden framed the argument a bit differently, saying it's the American people, not the administration, that Wall Street should be thanking and helping to lift up out of tough economic times.

Sen. Marco Rubio: The GOP 'Cannot Be The Anti-Illegal Immigration Party'

2011-10-05T20:50:40Z

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) ruled out becoming his party's vice presidential nominee in 2012 and offered the Republican presidential primary field some advice about dealing with the thorny issue of immigration Wednesday. He refused, however, to weigh in on the growing number of GOP candidates who are spurning a Univision debate because of a controversy surrounding his own family.

Speaking at the Washington Ideas Forum at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., Rubio said he is "not going to be the vice presidential nominee" when moderator Major Garrett, a congressional correspondent for the National Journal, asked if he was interested in the job.

"I'm not focused on that; I'm focused on my job right now. And the answer's probably going to be no -- The answer's going to be no," he said, adding that he had to correct himself because he didn't want to be seen as leaving the door open. Rubio has offered similar answers in the past, but no one seems to believe him and he is still consistently asked about his prospects.

Garrett also brought up the fact that five of the Republican presidential candidates have said they will boycott a proposed debate hosted by Spanish-language network Univision due to allegations that the network unethically pursued a story about Rubio's family, proposing to soften the piece if the senator appeared on its Al Punto show.

"The whole thing is something I really don't even want to comment on ... I know you have to ask, but I really don't want to address the whole issue. I really don't want to give that thing any oxygen," Rubio said when asked about the controversy on Wednesday.

Rubio also offered his party a cautionary note on immigration, saying it had to be careful not to focus primarily on targeting undocumented immigrants.

"We cannot be the anti-illegal immigration party. We have to be the pro-legal immigration party," he said. "We have to be a party that advocates for a legal immigration system that's good for Americans, good for America and honors our tradition both as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of law."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has taken heat from many of his fellow Republicans for signing a law in 2001 to provide in-state tuition to some undocumented students. Fellow presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has likened Perry's position to the one held by President Obama and other Democratic leaders.

In 2003, as a member of the Florida state legislature, Rubio also backed legislation -- which ultimately failed -- to provide in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students.

Rubio refused to take either Perry or Romney's side on the issue, telling reporters after the event, "Rick Perry had a bill in Texas. We had a different bill in Florida."

He said, as he has in the past, that he does not believe all undocumented students in the United States should receive in-state tuition at public colleges and universities, arguing that there should be exceptions for young people who are in the country without documents -- through no fault of their own -- and are outstanding students.

"There are instances of young people who have something to contribute to America's future, and I believe the vast majority of Americans would like to be able to accommodate them. My greater point, which I hope wasn't missed, was that it's become harder and harder to do that as this issue's gone unresolved, and people have become less supportive of those measures," he said.

Rubio, like Perry, doesn't back the federal DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who either attend college in the U.S. or join the U.S. military. Many immigration activists have also been disappointed that Rubio has tacked more to the right and shifted away from some of the relatively moderate positions he took while in the Florida legislature.

At the Ideas Forum, Rubio insisted that his positions have been consistent and what has changed is the political environment.

"I've been consistent in saying that while I think states have a right to do these policies that may touch upon immigration, I don't think that's the best way to do it," said Rubio in his remarks. "I've consistently said that I believe that immigration has to be addressed at the federal level in order to be solved."

Rubio also said his recent comment that programs like Social Security have "weakened us as a people" was misunderstood.

"The speech was actually a very strong defense of the proper role of government," he said, adding that government programs are "intended to supplement the things that we already did as a people, not replace it."

"In many communities -- and not necessarily the entitlement programs but some of the other programs that government is involved in -- the mindset has set in that somehow because we pay our taxes, it excuses us from our individual responsibilities as a neighbor, as a family member, to help those who are less fortunate," he added. "The bigger problem, however, is that these programs are created without any thought to how we are going to afford them in the future."

Sen. Marco Rubio: The GOP 'Cannot Be The Anti-Illegal Immigration Party'

2011-10-05T20:50:40Z

Rubio also offered his party a cautionary note on immigration, saying it had to be careful not to focus primarily on targeting undocumented immigrants.

In 2003, as a member of the Florida state legislature, Rubio also backed legislation -- which ultimately failed -- to provide in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students.

Rubio refused to take either Perry or Romney's side on the issue, telling reporters after the event, "Rick Perry had a bill in Texas. We had a different bill in Florida."

At the Ideas Forum, Rubio insisted that his positions have been consistent and what has changed is the political environment.

Rubio also said his recent comment that programs like Social Security have "weakened us as a people" was misunderstood.

Tim Geithner: Wall Street's Anger At President Obama Is 'Inexplicable'

2011-10-05T20:47:53Z

WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says he is baffled that Wall Street continues to oppose President Obama, even though administration officials bailed the financial industry out of the mess they created. In a speech on Wednesday, Geithner also commented on the growing protests around the country, saying he feels "sympathy" for Americans who are frustrated.

Geithner appeared at the Washington Ideas Forum in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, in a discussion moderated by Atlantic Editor-in-Chief James Bennet.

Bennet asked Geithner why Wall Street continues to fight Obama, even though "[n]o one has been a greater direct beneficiary than the financial community of the policies of this administration."

"You saved their companies, by and large, you saved their jobs, you even saved their bonuses. And they cannot stand this president now -- even people who supported him four years ago. Why? What explains that?" asked Bennet.

"I think it's inexplicable," responded Geithner. "People resent when they need help. It's a natural thing. They resent the huge amount of public anger they've been subjected to because they caused the crisis."

Despite the unprecedented bailout it received from taxpayers, the financial services industry consistently opposes Obama on issues such as taxes and regulations.

In recent months, Obama supporters have been trying to convince Wall Street executives that this administration has been friendly to them -- and is still worthy of their campaign donations in 2012.

"They sometimes claim that was created by us -- that anger -- which I think is a deeply unfair judgment," said Geithner. "They react to what is pretty modest, common-sense observations about this system as if they're deep affronts to the dignity of the profession, and I don't understand why they're so sensitive. They ask me all the time, why can't you heal that for us?" he added. "And I say to them -- I think, reasonably -- 'That's something you've got to earn back yourself. We can't do that for you.'"

"Do you feel any sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement?" Bennet asked later in the discussion.

"No, I feel a lot of sympathy for what you might describe as a general sense among Americans as to whether we've lost the sense of possibility -- and whether after a pretty bad lost decade ... followed by a devastating crisis [and a] huge loss of faith in public institutions, people do wonder whether we have the ability to do things that can help the average sense of opportunity in the country. And I definitely sympathize with that," he said.

"That's why I think those of us in Washington carry such a huge burden. No, we're not just trying to clean up a huge mess, we have to try to figure out how to do that at the same time we're trying to restore faith in public institutions. That's an essential thing to do, because we're having a terrible debate, a huge debate, an important debate about what is the role of government in the economy and society as a whole. What we need to do is restore some basic confidence so that the government is able to perform those critical functions that the market can't provide."

Earlier in the day at the Ideas Forum, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley also commented on the Occupy Wall Street movement, saying, "I don't know if it's helpful. I wouldn't characterize it that way. Look it: People express their opinions. In the new social network world, they can do it pretty effectively outside the normal way, historically, people have done it. So whether it's helpful to us, or helpful for people to understand in the political system that there are a lot of people out there concerned about the economy -- I know the focus is on Wall Street, but it's a broader discussion that we're having."

During a Joint Economic Committee hearing on Tuesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was asked about the protests as well. In response, he said that he "sympathize[s]" with Americans who are discouraged.

"I would just say very generally, I think people are quite unhappy with the state of the economy and what’s happening," he said. "They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington. And at some level, I can’t blame them."

Earlier on the Huffington Post:

Tim Geithner: Wall Street's Anger At President Obama Is 'Inexplicable'

2011-10-05T20:47:53Z

Geithner appeared at the Washington Ideas Forum in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, in a discussion moderated by Atlantic Editor-in-Chief James Bennet.

Bennet asked Geithner why Wall Street continues to fight Obama, even though "[n]o one has been a greater direct beneficiary than the financial community of the policies of this administration."

Despite the unprecedented bailout it received from taxpayers, the financial services industry consistently opposes Obama on issues such as taxes and regulations.

In recent months, Obama supporters have been trying to convince Wall Street executives that this administration has been friendly to them -- and is still worthy of their campaign donations in 2012.

"Do you feel any sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement?" Bennet asked later in the discussion.

Earlier on the Huffington Post:

Harry Reid Blocks Defense Bill Over Detainee Provisions

2011-10-05T15:52:54Z

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised that the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 will not come up for a vote until the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) changes provisions dictating treatment of detainees, including one that mandate military custody of terrorism suspects.

Reid first raised his concerns on the Senate floor on Monday, and on Tuesday, he followed up in a letter sent to SASC Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"I do not intend to bring this bill to the floor until concerns regarding the bill's detainee provisions are resolved," he wrote.

"The Obama Administration and several of our Senate colleagues have expressed serious concerns about the implications of the detainee provisions included in the legislation, particularly the authorization of indefinite detention in Section 1031, the requirement for mandatory military custody of terrorism suspects in Section 1032, and the stringent restrictions on transfer of detainees in 1033."

Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan also raised concerns about the Senate legislation in a speech on Sept. 16, saying the provisions would mean the United States "would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo."

"Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice -- our federal courts," he said in his remarks at Harvard Law School.

"Miranda warnings would be prohibited, even though they are at times essential to our ability to convict a terrorist and ensure that individual remains behind bars. In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."

Levin's spokesman declined to give a comment to Reid's letter, and McCain's office did not reespond. But on the Senate floor on Monday, McCain said he hopes the bill will come to the floor.

"I would hope that we would be able to debate and amend -- which is the usual way we address issues in this body -- rather than refusing to bring legislation to the floor because there is a particular objection to it," he said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reiterated this request on Wednesday, saying on the floor, "If there are members on the other side who support the White House effort to bring unlawful enemy combatants into the United States for purposes of detention and civilian trial, the Senate can debate that matter during consideration of the bill. I know that many members on my side would very much appreciate a debate on the importance of keeping detainees currently held at Guantanamo from returning to the battlefield, especially in places like Yemen."

The National Defense Authorization Act would authorize defense spending on military personnel, weapons and the wars.

The House approved its own version of the bill in May, which gave the Pentagon a $690 billion budget.

At that time, the White House threatened to veto the measure over provisions that, according to its statement, "limit the use of authorized funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict detainee transfers."

As Politico noted, the House bill "also contains a provision to force terrorism suspects into military custody, but unlike the Senate bill, the House version contains no national-security waiver that the administration could invoke."

Reid's Letter:

This story was updated with McConnell's comments and Levin's spokesman's response.

Earlier on HuffPost:

How Much Are Taxpayers Paying To Defend DOMA?

2011-10-04T16:09:56Z

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans have agreed to a new contract to pay a private law firm up to $1.5 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage on the federal level.

The amount is three times the figure originally agreed upon between the House and the firm Bancroft PLLC. The original contract, drawn up in April, read, "The General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services rendered a sum not to exceed $500,000.00."

A new contract, released to the press by House Democrats on Tuesday, raises that cap to $1.5 million: "The General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement a sum not to exceed $750,000.00. It is further understood and agreed that, effective October 1, 2011, the aforementioned $750,000.00 cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding, $1.5 million."

The original contract contained a clause stating that if the $500,000 cap was reached before the litigation was complete, the sum could be increased. The new contract also leaves the door open to raising the cap, stating, "It is further understood and agreed that should the cap be reached before the Litigation is complete, and if the cap has not been raised under the terms of this Agreement, Contractor shall not be obliged to continue providing legal services under this Agreement."

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) decision to have the House defend DOMA came after Attorney General Eric Holder announced in February that the administration had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and would no longer argue in support of it.

In March, a five-person House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted along party lines (3-2) to direct the House General Counsel to initiate a legal defense of DOMA.

Democrats quickly criticized the GOP for devoting scarce resources to defending a discriminatory law while other programs are being dramatically cut.

"It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act," said Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country."

One House Democratic staffer pointed out that 23 career employees in House operations have been laid off due to budget shortfalls. House Republicans have still not explained where the money they plan to use to pay Bancroft will come from.

"The entire contracting process has lacked any semblance of transparency," said the Democratic members of the House Administration Committee in a statement on Tuesday. "Our letters of warning and our questions about how any of the numbers were reached and where the money would come from have gone unanswered. Now, we find that Speaker Boehner's hand-picked lawyers have exhausted the half-million dollars we were told would be the total cost and they need an additional $1 million dollars -- or 300% of the original contract, to continue the work."

Neither the offices of Boehner nor Bancroft returned requests for comment.

Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, originally took up the case while a partner at the law firm King & Spalding. But after receiving significant public criticism from LGBT rights organizations, the firm filed a motion to withdraw its representation, arguing "the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate." Attorneys at King & Spalding have since said Clement never submitted the contract to the business review committee for approval. Clement quickly left the firm and joined Bancroft, where he continues to represent the House in the DOMA case.

"There seems to be no limit to how much taxpayer money the House Republican leadership is willing to spend to keep this discriminatory law on the books," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "At a time when budgeting is the watchword in Washington, Americans will be rightly aghast at this boondoggle for right-wing lawyers. The Defense of Marriage Act singles out same-sex couples for unfair treatment and no amount of money can overcome the fact that it flies in the face of our cherished constitutional principles."

New contract:

How Much Are Taxpayers Paying To Defend DOMA?

2011-10-04T16:09:56Z

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans have agreed to a new contract to pay a private law firm up to $1.5 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage on the federal level.

In March, a five-person House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted along party lines (3-2) to direct the House General Counsel to initiate a legal defense of DOMA.

Democrats quickly criticized the GOP for devoting scarce resources to defending a discriminatory law while other programs are being dramatically cut.

Neither the offices of Boehner nor Bancroft returned requests for comment.

New contract:

LISTEN: Dick Cheney On The Last Time He Cried: 'It's Been Some 10 Years Ago'

2011-10-03T23:15:39Z

WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney can't remember the last time he's cried. In fact, when asked about it on a radio interview on Monday, he was stumped.

Cheney called in to 730 AM, the Fox sports radio station in Memphis, Tenn., on Monday afternoon. The discussion focused mostly on Cheney's memoir, including the fact that he resented John Kerry and John Edwards for bringing up the sexual orientation of his daughter during the 2004 campaign, and his oft-repeated statement that he believes the country is now safer because of what he and President Bush did.

But when the host asked, "When was the last time you cried?" Cheney was taken aback.

"Hm. Well, I'd have to sit down and think about that," he replied. "I don't -- I'm sure there have been times. Most of them probably deeply personal. ... It's been some 10 years ago."

LISTEN:

In a recent event at the American Enterprise Institute, moderator Stephen Hayes told Cheney that after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he "broke down crying." When asked if Cheney had ever had a moment like that, he replied, "not really."

In contrast, President George W. Bush was known to occasionally cry in public.

In his memoir, Cheney wrote that in 2003, Condoleezza Rice -- then serving as national security adviser -- came into his office and "tearfully admitted" he had been right in insisting that Bush shouldn't apologize for the inaccurate weapons of mass destruction claims about Iraq in his State of the Union address.

Rice replied in an interview with Reuters, stating, "And so I did say to the vice president, 'you know, you were right about the press reaction.' But I am quite certain that I didn't do it tearfully."

Later, when asked how he'd like to be remembered, Cheney jokingly replied, "as a great author." He then, however, said, "I'll let the historians worry about that."

Gay Military Members Wear Uniforms To Big LGBT Dinner

2011-10-02T01:20:00Z

WASHINGTON -- The 15th annual fundraising dinner for the Human Rights Campaign on Saturday was different from past events for one big reason: Openly gay active-duty servicemembers were able to wear their military uniforms without any fear of retribution.

Ret. Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay veteran who has been an outspoken supporter of LGBT rights, was the first Marine seriously wounded in the Iraq War. He was also right by President Obama's side when he signed into law the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," which barred gay and lesbian individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military.

This year's event was the first dinner to take place since DADT, which officially ended on Sept. 20.

Alva has attended five of HRC's annual dinners, but this was the first one to which he has worn his military uniform, which was decorated with medals, including the Purple Heart.

"This is something monumental," said Alva. "We needed to do this. People often ask me, ‘Eric, how do you feel about the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell?’ I’m excited. I’m ecstatic. I’m retired now, but this was something that needed to be done for the better good of America."

Maj. Shannon McCrory has been serving for 17 years and has been a member of HRC for 10 years. This, however, was the first time that he attended one of the group's annual dinners, and he did so in his uniform.

McCrory said his post-DADT experience so far has been "fairly positive." He has not come out publicly in his office, but he has with others in his life.

"I think a lot of people know us and knew we were there, and they're just happy that they can get to know us for who we are versus having to live a sheltered life," he told The Huffington Post.

When asked about all the soldiers wearing their uniforms, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) -- who is a lesbian and running for U.S. Senate -- said, "It warms my heart, and I'm so proud of them, and thank them so much for their service to our country."

Michael Subra, an active-duty servicemember who has been with the U.S. Coast Guard for more than 15 years, was invited to the HRC dinner.

When asked why he was in uniform, he replied, "No particular reason. Just because I can, I guess -- 'don’t ask, don’t tell,' the repeal."

He called Sept. 20 a "good day," but said he didn't come out publicly at work.

"But it was really just an ordinary day for me because I didn’t act or do anything different on that day at work," said Subra.

At Saturday's dinner, there was a table filled with servicemembers -- both active-duty and retired -- wearing their uniforms.

Related Video:

Obama Blasts GOP Candidates' Silence When Gay Soldier Was Booed

2011-10-02T00:40:00Z

WASHINGTON -- President Obama forcefully called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on Saturday night at the annual Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner, but he did not come out in support of marriage equality, as some hoped he would do.

The 3,000 attendees at the dinner, which took place at the Washington Convention Center, gave the president multiple standing ovations when he touted the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples and spoke out against the bullying of LGBT youth.

The most electric reaction, however, came when Obama sharply criticized the GOP presidential candidates for staying silent when audience members at a debate booed a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

"We don't believe in standing silent when that happens. We don't believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient. We don't believe in a small America. We believe in a big America -- a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America -- that values the service of every patriot."

Notably at Saturday's dinner, there was a table filled with servicemembers -- both active-duty and retired -- wearing their uniforms. HRC spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz said it was a first for active-duty members to do so, since it's also the first post-DADT dinner.

Last week, Obama also chastised the audience at the GOP debate for booing the soldier, but this is the first time that he forcefully went after the candidates for their silence.

Obama referenced the remarks he gave at the annual HRC dinner two years ago, when he acknowledged the frustration that many LGBT activists had with his administration. He said it wasn't appropriate to tell them to wait anymore than it was for "others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago."

"We've got more work ahead of us. But we can also be proud of the progress we've made these past two and a half years. Think about it," he said, mentioning the repeal of DADT, new hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples and hate crimes legislation protecting LGBT individuals.

"I need your help to fight for equality, to pass a repeal of DOMA, to pass an inclusive employment non-discrimination bill, so that being gay is never again a fireable offensive in America," said Obama. "And I don't have to tell you, there are those who don't want to just stand in our way, but want to turn the clock back, who want to return to the days when gay people couldn't serve their country openly. Who reject the progress we've made. Who ... want to enshrine discrimination in state laws and constitutions -- efforts that we've got to work hard to oppose, because that's not what America should be about. We're not about restricting rights and restricting opportunity."

Obama also cited the White House summit he held to fight youth bullying, saying it was an issue his administration would continue to press.

"Together, we also have to keep sending a message to every young person in this country who might feel alone or afraid because they're transgender," he said. "They may be getting picked on or pushed around because they're different. We've got to make sure they know there are adults they can talk to, that they are never alone, that there is a whole world waiting for them, filled with possibility. ... And I want all those kids to know the president and the first lady is standing right by them every inch of the way. I want them to know we love them and care about them, and they're not by themselves."

The dinner was the last one under the helm of HRC President Joe Solmonese, who has led the organization since 2005 and recently announced he would be stepping down.

"No president has done more to improve the lives of LGBT people than President Obama," said Solomnese in his introduction of the president. "No longer will gay and lesbian couples be kept apart when we are at our most vulnerable, at the hospital, thanks to President Obama. He kept his word, and he ushered in the end of DADT while others promised to reopen the wounds of that discriminatory policy. And unlike those who want to keep same-sex couples as strangers under federal law, our president has called the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and indefensible."

Also attending the event were Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), musician Cyndi Lauper, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actress Sarah Jessica Parker, former Second Lady Tipper Gore and actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report incorrectly referred to Tipper Gore as the former First Lady. She is the former Second Lady.

Jared Polis Becomes First Openly Gay Parent In Congress

2011-09-30T20:05:51Z

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) is a proud father of a newborn baby, making him the first openly gay parent in the U.S. Congress.

On Friday, Polis and his partner, Marlon Reis, sent out an announcement about the arrival of their son, Caspian Julius, who is 8 pounds, 12 ounces.

"Baby and parents are doing well, baby has learned to cry already! No gifts please, just nice thoughts for Caspian, humankind, the planet, and the universe!" read the announcement.

Polis and Reis have declined to comment on whether it was a surrogate pregnancy or an adoption.

“We are so thrilled for the congressman and his partner,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, an organization that advocates for LGBT families. “Little Caspian Julius is so lucky to have two wonderful and loving dads. On behalf of America’s growing number of LGBT parents, we want to send the family our warmest wishes.”

According to the Family Equality Council, there are 1 million LGBT parents raising 2 million children.

Polis is a co-sponsor of the Every Child Deserves A Family Act, which would "ban discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on the sexual orientation, marital status or gender identity of the potential parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child," according to a press release from the office of Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who introduced the bill.

Jared Polis Becomes First Openly Gay Parent In Congress

2011-09-30T20:05:51Z

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) is a proud father of a newborn baby, making him the first openly gay parent in the U.S. Congress.

On Friday, Polis and his partner, Marlon Reis, sent out an announcement about the arrival of their son, Caspian Julius, who is 8 pounds, 12 ounces.

"Baby and parents are doing well, baby has learned to cry already! No gifts please, just nice thoughts for Caspian, humankind, the planet, and the universe!" read the announcement.

Eric Cantor Pressed FEMA About Aid For His District As Agency Struggled For Funding

2011-09-27T20:08:00Z

WASHINGTON -- Federal Emergency Management Agency officials have been busy convincing Congress to quickly fill its emergency aid coffers, as the agency finds its funds drained by the natural disasters that have hit the country in recent months. The insistence, led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), that Congress should cut spending elsewhere to offset disaster relief funding, led to a partisan standoff and nearly shut down the government.

On Friday, however, FEMA officials found themselves busy answering to Cantor for another reason: He had requested a conference call to get updates on the disbursement of aid requested by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) for his district, which was affected by the Aug. 23 East Coast earthquake.

According to a read-out of the call from Cantor's office, as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "FEMA said they have received the Governor's request and sent it to the White House for a decision but could not provide any specific information on timing. Even when asked for an estimate based on past applications they were unable to do so."

A FEMA spokesperson confirmed that the call happened on Friday, and said Cantor's office had requested it on Sept. 22.

Cantor also called Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, "asking for additional information and a better sense of timing," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Napolitano's office declined to comment.

Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), quickly criticized Cantor for looking for FEMA aid while the agency was struggling to stay afloat during the congressional funding standoff.

"The only thing worse than Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor's outrageous plan to hold disaster relief hostage to his push for radical cuts in job creation is his brazen hypocrisy in trying to convince his constituents back home that he stood with them in the first place," said Ferguson.

"Perhaps the DCCC should be more concerned with the fact that Leader Pelosi, Chairman [Steve] Israel, and all but five House Democrats voted against $3 billion in aid for FEMA, including over $1 billion in immediate emergency aid," responded Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring. "That is more than Leader [Harry] Reid and Senate passed last evening. The purpose of the call was solely to keep local officials informed on the timeline and process for determination by President Obama and Secretary Napolitano as to whether federal disaster aid will be granted. That is, you know, his job as a Congressman."

In July, congressional leaders from both parties agreed to spend $1.043 trillion to keep the government running while the super committee worked on plans to cut the deficit.

But that plan went off the tracks when mounting natural disasters stressed the FEMA budget; rather than simply pass a White House request for $500 million in emergency spending, Cantor said something else would have to be cut first.

The vast majority of House Democrats did vote against the GOP proposal for FEMA aid, because it contained those proposed offsets.

Tensions were eased when FEMA announced on Monday that it had enough funds to sustain itself through the end of the week, relieving Congress from immediately having to pass an extra $1 billion for FEMA.

Congressional leaders were eventually able to agree to a deal to keep the government running until Nov. 18. Beginning Saturday and until that date, FEMA has a remaining $2.65 billion to spend. The Senate passed the agreement in a 79-12 vote on Monday, and the House is expected to take it up next week.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated Eric Cantor is the House Minority Leader. He is the House Majority Leader.