With time running out on the Bush administration, conservative activists are renewing a drive for regulations that would deny federal subsidies to clinics that provide abortions or counsel women about the option...

The federal government distributes about $280 million a year among thousands of clinics to subsidize the cost of birth control, cancer screening, HIV testing and other reproductive care for low-income patients. Known as Title X, the program serves five million men and women a year. By law, the money can't be used for abortion procedures.

But about one-third of Title X patients receive their care at reproductive-health clinics run by Planned Parenthood, which is also the nation's largest abortion provider. Critics say the federal grants indirectly subsidize Planned Parenthood's abortion services by keeping a steady stream of money flowing into the clinics.

Two decades ago, President Reagan imposed rules barring clinics that receive Title X money from performing abortions or referring patients to abortion clinics. Opponents filed suit, and the regulations were put on hold for years as the court battle played out. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually upheld the regulations -- but a year and a half later, President Clinton took office and rescinded them...

Activists also are trying to rouse support for a bill to be introduced this summer by Rep. Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana. Mr. Pence -- who says he is "befuddled" by Mr. Bush's inaction on this issue -- would like to strip all Title X funding from Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America relies on government grants and contracts, including Title X, for roughly a third of its nearly $337 million budget, according to its most recent financial report. A spokeswoman for the nonprofit group declined to speculate on the effect of new Title X restrictions, beyond expressing concern for patients.

Fortunately, many Republicans who value limited government and civil liberties are standing up to the administration. Take Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who asked during the floor debate: “What's a conservative like me doing passing a bill that helps reporters?” His answer: “The only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press.”

The House on Thursday refused to provide more funds for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, effectively delegating that task to the Senate for now.

The House voted 141-149, with 132 Republicans voting present, to reject the war funding portion of the supplemental spending bill. The vote means the Senate will have to add the money to the bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee meanwhile was marking up its version of the measure.

House Republicans withheld their votes for the war funding amendment to the bill (HR 2642) in a bid to force Democrats to come up with enough votes to adopt the funds. But a majority of Democrats voted against the war funding.

Republicans had been expected to provide the bulk of the support for the war funding amendment, but many members voted present instead. The idea came from members of the conservative Republican Study Committee: Rep. Mike Pence , R-Ind., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling , R-Texas. “Republicans support our troops. Democrats defeated funding our troops in the field,” Pence said.

Republicans grew frustrated with House Democratic floor aides — and indicated they found much of their testimony implausible — during a second, sometimes contentious day of hearings on the so-called “stolen” vote of Aug. 2, 2007.

While Tuesday’s hearing was marked by a consensus that the Democrats’ rule banning the holding open of votes for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome is unenforceable, Wednesday’s final day of public hearings on roll call vote 814 was marked by partisan divisions.

“Despite the fact that Majority Leader Hoyer clearly stated to Ms. O’Neill that he wanted the vote closed, we remain frustrated that she has no recollection,” Pence said following the hearing.

“Which is why we believe that the evidence supports our conclusion that, one, Republicans won the motion to recommit and, two, the Democratic leadership pressured the chair,” Pence added.

“Our ideal outcome is, at best, for one member of the majority on the panel to join us in our description of what happened that night,” Pence said. “What we’re struggling with here as the minority is adding things up that don’t quite add up.”

Most Indiana lawmakers voted for a $300 billion farm and nutrition bill that would expand food help for the poor but doesn’t go as far as the White House wanted in limiting subsidies to wealthy farmers.

The 318-106 House vote today was enough to override a threatened presidential veto.

Indiana’s five House Democrats and GOP Reps. Steve Buyer and Mark Souder voted for the bill, while GOP Reps. Dan Burton and Mike Pence opposed it. Indiana is agriculture," Pence said. "But Hoosiers on and off the farm also believe in fiscal discipline and reform."

The House defied a veto threat Wednesday and passed a bill promoted as a way to cut grocery prices, feed hungry people and help the U.S. reduce its reliance on foreign oil.

Its critics said the $290 billion outline for the next five years of agriculture policy is too expensive and gives too much money to wealthy farmers and landowners.

A year and a half in the making, the bill provides money for food stamps and other nutrition programs, conservation, ethanol research and subsidies for farmers and landowners.

The subsidy provision is the most controversial, drawing rebukes from lawmakers such as Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th, who said it was irresponsible.

One of the dramatic changes Democrats imposed to show they had ended a "culture of corruption” now is on the rocks.

The No. 2 leader in the House, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said Tuesday that he wouldn’t mind revising or tossing out one of the new rules his party put into place with great fanfare at the start of the 110th Congress.

The rule banning extra-long voting periods “for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome” has turned out to be unenforceable, Hoyer told a special bipartisan panel that has spent nine months examining one such extended vote.

...

Indiana Republican Mike Pence , one of the six panel members, chided his colleague, saying he “sidestepped a long-standing procedural safeguard designed to ensure the integrity of the vote on the floor of the House.”

Had Republicans won that night, it would have been a morale-booster and a rare political victory in a chamber where the minority party has few opportunities to force votes on tough issues — in this case to deny food stamps to illegal aliens.

Two days of public hearings did little to promote agreement between Democrats and Republicans on what happened on the House floor the night of Aug. 2, 2007.

A special committee created to get to the bottom of what Republicans call a “stolen vote” has spent much of the last nine months — and $500,000 — trying to pin down the facts before recommending ways to prevent such chaos from happening again.

The evenly divided, six-member panel may suggest changing or getting rid of a House rule against keeping roll calls open for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of a vote.

“I leave these public hearings less optimistic that we will agree on what happened that night, but more optimistic that we will embrace reforms to make sure it never happens again,” said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Select Committee to Investigate Voting Irregularities of Roll Call 814, as the panel is formally called.

“Hopefully we can leave this institution off better than we found it,” he said.

The vote in question was on a Republican motion to bar illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. The tally was very close, and in the end Democrats announced that the measure had failed, even though it appeared several members on both sides were in the midst of changing their votes. Republican believe the vote was actually in their favor when the gavel came down.

"There's no doubt in my mind that it's politics," Hoyer said, explaining that he believed Republicans were still angry at criticism they received from Democrats on procedural issues back when they controlled the House.

Hoyer did allow, as he has before, that he understood the GOP's frustration that the vote was called as a loss for their side even as the House's electronic vote board seemed to show them winning. "The minority was rightfully angry and upset by that disparity, by that contradiction," he said.

But Republicans made clear they believed last August's vote was most certainly a big deal, worth the time, worth the money and worth the effort to break down that night's events almost second-by-second. The special committee's top Republican, Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), said in his opening statement that the disputed event "was a dark moment in the history of the United States House of Representatives and must never be allowed to happen again."

Congress is poised to tweak but not overhaul the nation’s crop subsidy system, a decision Indiana’s senior lawmaker says is a mistake and that President Bush promised to veto.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th, issued a statement praising provisions in the legislation, saying they “will save Indiana jobs and create new opportunities for Indiana farmers.” But he said he’s undecided on whether to vote for or against the bill. Pence voted against the House version last summer.

Nine months after Democrats allegedly stole a parliamentary vote in the House, the long-running "Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007" will haul House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer to the witness stand today for what Republicans insist will be the Maryland Democrat's comeuppance.

The events of that day have been long forgotten by all but the most partisan of Republicans or the wonkiest of C-SPAN watchers. In the meantime, an investigative committee created to salve wounded feelings in the House has spent nearly half a million dollars, mainly on high-priced K Street lawyers.

House Democrats and Republicans agreed Tuesday that something went wrong during a vote on the night of Aug. 2 last year. But after a nine-month, half-million dollar investigation, Democrats still see it as an innocent mistake, while Republicans view it as an assault on democracy.

"When any majority feels it can cut corners," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, the Republican leader of the six-member team set up to investigate the vote, "we risk reducing the most powerful democracy in the history of the world to a banana republic."

Democrats expressed remorse over the incident, but denied any ulterior motives.

Rep. Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.), who presided in the Speaker’s chair during the 2007 vote, also testified on Tuesday and apologized for having gaveled the Republican amendment closed when the voting tally reached a 214­-214 deadlock. The electronic tally board in the chamber showed the amendment winning by a margin of 215-213 when it was gaveled.

Republicans have cried foul over the 2007 vote. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said the “chaos of Aug. 2, 2007 was a dark moment in the history of the United States House of Representatives and must never be allowed to happen again.”

Republicans eager to tar the new majority as excessively heavy-handed put Democrats on the spot Tuesday, examining in detail a chaotic night when standard voting procedures were not followed.

Indiana Republican Mike Pence — interrogating McNulty and others in public after months of closed-door interviews — chided his colleague, saying he “sidestepped a long-standing procedural safeguard designed to ensure the integrity of the vote on the floor of the House.”

“I believe that the evidence gathered by the select committee will show that the chair rushed to close the vote in the face of pressure from Democratic leadership,” said Pence.

Had Republicans won that night, it would have been a morale-booster and a rare political victory in a chamber where the minority has few opportunities to force votes on tough issues — in this case to deny food stamps to illegal aliens.

It is the public, not the news media, that ultimately benefits most from the sort of aggressive journalism that sometimes requires pledges of confidentiality. That's why both the House and Senate versions of the bill empower judges to determine
if "the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information."

Even without added protections, dedicated journalists will protect their sources. But a federal shield law -- like those already on the books in most states -- would reinforce the need for investigative journalism in a democratic society and protect reporters who undertake it. The stories they write will benefit the nation.

The committee has arranged for testimony from Hoyer, D-Md.; House
Parliamentarian John Sullivan ; Rep. Michael R. McNulty , D-N.Y., who was in the Speaker’s chair at the time; and several staff members. All the witnesses have already been interviewed privately.

Rep. Bill Delahunt , D-Mass., chairman of the special panel, predicted the hearing would last an entire day.

Delahunt and his Republican counterpart, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, recently requested $150,000 to complete their work, which will include an extensive report with recommendations to change House rules.

The importance of a free press is so woven into the fabric of our history that Americans often take it for granted. But when we observe fledgling democracies around the world, Americans can see just how essential a free media are to democracy -- and how easily they can be chilled. If we are to have a free press, it is necessary to protect the relationship between journalists and trusted sources to whom journalists have promised confidentiality. For this reason, every state but Wyoming has established some form of reporters' privilege.