Open Congress : Blog

Return of the REAL ID

2009-07-09T13:57:00Z

In the form of an amendment to the 2005 military spending bill, Congress slipped the REAL ID Act into law with hardly any debate or deliberation. Since then, 23 States have passed legislation blocking its implementation.

Now there is a recurrent bill in Congress, the PASS ID Act, which with bi-partisan support, suggests bringing back the REAL ID Act from dormancy, albeit while attempting to address many of the privacy concerns previously held by critics. As a result, an unusually wide range of civil rights groups from both the right and left are arguing, that although the PASS ID Act is an improvement upon its predecessor, efforts to amend the 2005 law would be insufficient and merely another attempt to put in place a National ID.

S.1261, Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009 or the PASS ID Act, sets out minimum requirements for State driver’s licenses and ID cards regarding what data is included and what documentation must be presented when receiving such ID cards. Such provisions in turn, seek to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 for the (typically ambiguous) purposes of better protecting the “security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents.”

On a more antagonistic tone, the bill states that a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a State driver’s license or identification card unless the State is materially compliant to the provisions of this legislation.

The particulars of this bill include that a driver’s license or an identification card issued by the state must include the following information about the relevant person:

legal name,
date of birth,
gender,
a driver’s license or identification card number,
a digital photograph,
address, signature,
a combination of security features designed to protect the physical integrity of the document,
a common machine-readable technology containing the data elements,
and a symbol designated by the Secretary, indicating material compliance.

The legislation specifically mentions, however, that the State may not include a person’s social security number as an additional data element. In order to issue a driver’s license or ID card, the State must require, at a minimum, the presentation and validation of documents showing the person’s full name, date of birth, social security number (or equivalent) and address. These documents must also show proof that the person is a United States citizen or otherwise residing legally within the United States with employment authorization.

In anticipation of criticisms to the costliness of implementing these provisions in the individual states, this legislation also offers grants to help states meet these minimum requirements. Lastly, this bill seeks to establish a “State-to-State 1 driver, 1 license” demonstration project to evaluate the feasibility of creating an electronic system verifying that someone does not receive duplicate materially compliant duplicate driver’s license or identification card.

More interesting, however, is the legislative lineage from which this bill stems, and the uproar it entices among voices, which are otherwise rarely heard in unison.

To start, the previously mentioned REAL ID Act was introduced in 2005 as H.R.418 by Rep. Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5] but then became stagnant in the Senate. With Sensenbrenner’s graces, however, the bill rode on the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, H.R.1268. This then perceived must-pass bill with the REAL ID rider flew through the House (368-58) and Senate (100-0) and was subsequently signed into law. Despite the unanimity of the latter vote, the Senate, never discussed or voted on the Real ID Act specifically and no Senate committee hearings were conducted on the Real ID Act prior to its passage, raising claims of a democratic deficit. (Sound familiar?)

The implementation and enforcement of the REAL ID provisions, however, have since then been perpetually postponed in the hopes of gaining State support. This has been all but reached, however, as 23 States have actually passed legislation in opposition to the REAL ID Act. Furthermore, opposition cuts across libertarian, immigrant advocacy, human and civil rights, privacy advocacy, good government and government accountability, labor, consumer and patient protection, and gun rights groups. On the other hand, the Real ID Act is strongly supported many anti-illegal immigration advocates. Within congress, the Real ID Act enjoys support from members such as Sen. John McCain [R,AZ], but has been rejected by members such as Rep. Ron Paul [R, TX-14]. (When a senator, President Obama also opposed the legislation.)

Given this heavy opposition, it is not surprising that legislation, such as the PASS ID Act, has been introduced to repeal provisions in the REAL ID Act. Similar bills, H.R.1117 and S.717, were presented in the previous Congressional session but died while in committee. The former was introduce by former Rep. Thomas Allen and enjoyed support from 40 democratic co-sponsors while the latter, like the current S.1261, was introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI] and carried bi-partisan support from 7 co-sponsors.

After sponsoring this congressional session’s version of the bill, Akaka stated that:

Perhaps the most important improvement in the PASS ID Act is the removal of the mandate that states share all of their driver’s license data with each of the other states. This provision created a clear risk to the privacy of all Americans’ personal information and posed a great risk for identity theft and fraud. Moreover, it was this provision that raised the specter of a national database of all Americans’ personal information…The PASS ID Act instead will allow states to continue to maintain their own individual databases with more stringent security requirements. (Examiner)

Indeed such improvements are evident in the bill’s text, which states that nothing “may be construed to — (1) authorize the creation of a national database of driver’s license information; or  (2) authorize States direct access to the motor vehicle database of another State.” See Akaka’s press release for how S.1261 more specifically does and does not alter the REAL ID Act.

Despite these changes, critics largely charge that, although a step in the right direction, the PASS ID Act is too similar to the REAL ID Act to warrant support.

For example, Chris Calabrese, counsel of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program, stated that:

Sen. Akaka is right in his efforts to eliminate a substantial number of the more problematic aspects of Real ID…But while these attempts at improvement are commendable, Real ID cannot be ‘fixed,’ and we oppose anything that would revive it.

Opponents further argue that this bill still violates the 10th amendment and the concept of Federalism. Immigrant and civil rights advocates also state that the bill’s evidentiary standards would prevent many legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining that status and that they are merely blunt instruments, which would do little for immigration reform.

For such reasons the PASS ID Act is simultaneously one of the top ten most written about bills in the news and is currently the bill attracting the most attention in the blogosphere. Similarly, the above-mentioned sentiments have been echoed amongst OpenCongress voters, whose opposition to S.1261 caused the bill to “heat up” this week on our Battle Royale function. In light of all this attention, here are a few points of discussion regarding the PASS ID Act:

A comparison of the REAL ID and PASS ID Acts (Jim Harper)
A more visual comparison of the two pieces of legislation (CDT)
REAL ID Should Be Repealed, Not Fixed (ACLU)

Maverick Watch: Slavery Edition

2009-07-08T16:30:00Z

Yesterday, the House voted on a resolution (H. Con. Res. 135) “Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.”

The vote was 399-1, with Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] being the lone dissenter. He has posted the following explanation of his vote on his website:

In the Capitol Visitor’s Center, we agreed to change the name of the Great Hall – which honored the immigrants that came legally to America – to Emancipation Hall to honor the 645,000 slaves and their descendants who were brought to the United States more than two centuries ago.

Last night I opposed yet another bill to erect another monument to slavery because it was used as a bargaining chip to allow for the actual depiction of ‘In God We Trust’ in the CVC. The Architect of the Capitol and liberal activists opposed every reference to America’s Christian heritage, even to the extent of scrubbing ‘In God We Trust’ from the depiction of the actual Speaker’s chair in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is just the latest example of a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America’s Christian heritage from our nation’s Capitol. Liberals want to amend our country’s history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors. Christian abolitionists gave their lives by the hundreds of thousands to end slavery. Great American leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. worshipped God just as our Founding Fathers did. We must never forget this important aspect of our heritage or use it as a political bargaining chip.

UPDATE: Corrected the name of the Rep. as per the comment below.

H.R. 2454, Sec. 204

2009-07-08T13:27:00Z

At OpenCongress, our core mission is to build public knowledge about what’s really happening in Congress. All of the tools we’ve built on the site are designed to meet that goal. For example, we’re crowd-sourcing discovery of the best articles and comments about bills in Congress, building community-edited wikis on bills, members and candidates, and providing context to legislation through social and media data.

Another set of features we launched more recently is designed to facilitate more detailed, granular discussions of the substance of bills. In February, we added the ability to leave in-line comments on bill text and create permalinks to specific sections. With the permalinking tool, when you’re blogging about a bill or discussing it on a forum, you can use these custom urls to focus more easily on the specific provisions in a bill that you are talking about.

Jimmie Bise at the American Issues Project blog made great use of the permalinking tool today in his post examining a rumor about the cap-and-trade bill he had noticed circulating in the blogs and over email. The rumor, as he explains here, is that “if you own a home and want to sell it, the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill would require you to have your house inspected to make sure it meets a certain energy-efficiency target and, if it doesn’t make it, to bring it up to code before you sell it.” His post looks at a specific section of the bill, called the “Building Energy Performance Labeling Program”, and determines that the rumor is “not quite as bad as it could be and far worse.”

Based on his examination of the text, he came to the following conclusion: the section of the bill, he says, means, “basically, that your house belongs to the state.” Read his post to learn more. The great part about his use of the bill text linking tool is that it makes it easy to check his analysis of the bill. Instead of just talking about the gigantic, 1200+ page bill generally, Jimmie’s post opens up the subject for research and invites us all to help conduct a peer review. I encourage you to check out Jimmie’s post, then check his links to the bill text and see if you read them the same way.

Ladies and Gentleman, Senator Al Franken

2009-07-07T13:29:00Z

Sen. Franken will be assigned to the following committees:

Senate Indian Affairs

Senate Aging (Special)

Senate Judiciary

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (once the markup of the health care bill is completed).

Senate Dems Block a DeMint Amendment to Audit the Fed

2009-07-07T11:06:00Z

As I’ve mentioned several times on this blog, Rep. Ron Paul [R, TX-14] has a bill in the House to audit the Federal reserve that has attracted 244 bipartisan co-sponsors, which is more than half of the entire House. The bill is significant for a couple of reasons. First, Paul, who is best known for opposing just about everything Congress does, rarely ever sees support from his colleagues for his legislation, let alone overwhelming and bipartisan support. Secondly, the Federal Reserve is notoriously secretive; it has successfully avoided government audits for the last 50 years.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] is tentatively supporting the bill and has indicated that there will be hearings. My guess is that the bill will even get a vote in the House before this session of Congress is through. But it’s prospects in the Senate are much, much dimmer.

Yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC] attempted to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate in the form of an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, but Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE], likely acting on behalf of the Democratic leadership, blocked the amendment, citing a parliamentary rule banning legislation on appropriations bills. But, as Demint proceeded to point out, the underlying appropriations bill already contains several provisions that are undeniably legislative in nature.

Watch the video below. DeMint’s line of questioning and the answers he gets from the acting Senate President pro tempore make it clear that the amendment wasn’t blocked for parliamentary reasons, but because of its content:

The Michael Jackson Resolution

2009-07-06T21:46:00Z

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] has proposed a resolution in Congress in honor of the life and work of Michael Jackson. It’s extremely long; about three or four times the length of a “typical” resolution, and focuses heavily on his role as a humanitarian.

You can read the full resolution at this link, or below. The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs the same day it was introduced. No word yet on when, or if, this resolution will be voted on by the House.

H. Res. 600 – A tribute to an American legend and musical icon.

Whereas Michael Jackson was not only an accomplished recording and performing artist, he was a noted humanitarian;

Whereas Michael Jackson began his stellar recording career as the featured member of ‘The Jackson 5’, which was the first act in recorded history to have their first four major label singles ‘I Want You Back’,‘ABC’,‘The Love You Save’, and ‘I’ll Be There’, reached the top of the American charts;

Whereas the internationally recognized ‘Thriller’ released in 1982, which became a smash hit yielded seven top-10 singles. The album sold 21 million copies in the United States and at least 27 million worldwide. It was a monumental moment in music history;

Whereas Michael Jackson was labeled ‘The King of Pop’, Jackson’s music is internationally recognized and critically acclaimed;

Whereas Michael Jackson was one of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice;

Whereas in the early 1980s, Michael Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV. The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV, such as ‘Beat It’, ‘Billie Jean’ and ‘Thriller’—widely credited with transforming the music video from a promotional tool into an art form—helped bring the relatively new channel to fame;

Whereas, on January 10, 1984, Michael Jackson visited the unit for burn victims at Brotman-Memorial Hospital in Los Angeles, and demonstrated his concern with people suffering from grievous injuries;

Whereas, on April 9, 1984, David Smithee, a 14-year-old boy suffering from cystic fibroses was invited to Michael’s home, in response to a dying request to meet Michael. David passed away 7 weeks later;

Whereas, on April 14, 1984, Michael Jackson was single handedly responsible for equipping a 19-bed-unit at Mount Sinai New York Medical Center. This center is now a critical part of the T.J. Martell Foundation for leukemia and cancer research;

Whereas, on July 5, 1984, during the Jackson’s press conference at Tavern On The Green, Michael announced that his portion of the earnings from the Victory Tour would be donated to three charitable organizations: The United Negro College Fund, Camp Good Times, and the T.J. Martell Foundation;

Whereas, on July 14, 1984, after the first concert of the Victory Tour, Michael met 8 terminally ill children backstage;

Whereas, on December 13, 1984, Michael visited the Brotman Memorial Hospital, where he had been treated when he was burned during the producing of a Pepsi commercial. He subsequently donated all the money he received from Pepsi, $1.5 million, to the Michael Jackson Burn Center for Children;

Whereas, on January 28, 1985 Michael and 44 other artists met to record ‘We Are The World’, written by Michael and Lionel Ritchie, a project devoted to fighting global hunger. The proceeds of this record were donated to the starving people in Africa;

Whereas in 1986, Michael set up the ‘Michael Jackson UNCF Endowed Scholarship Fund’. This $1.5 million fund is aimed toward assisting students majoring in performance art and communications, with money given each year to students attending a UNCF member college or university;

Whereas, on February 28, 1986, after having had a heart-transplant, 14-year-old Donna Ashlock from California received a call from Michael Jackson. He had heard that she was a fan. Michael invited Donna to his home following her recovery;

Whereas, on September 13, 1987, Michael supported a campaign against racism. He made every effort to publicly support NAACP, in the fight against discrimination of African-American artists;

Whereas in October 1987, at the end of his ‘Bad Tour’, Michael donated personal items to UNESCO for a charitable auction. The proceeds of his donation were allocated for the education of children in developing countries;

Whereas, on February 1, 1988 The Song ‘Man In the Mirror’ entered the charts. The proceeds from the sales of this record went directly and exclusively to Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times, a camp for children who suffer from Cancer;

Whereas, on March 1, 1988, at a press conference held by his sponsor Pepsi, Michael presented a $600,000 check to the United Negro College Fund;

Whereas on April 1988, Michael Jackson ensured that free tickets to three concerts in Atlanta, Georgia, were specifically set aside for the Make a Wish Foundation;

Whereas, on May 22, 1988, Michael visited cancer-stricken children in the Bambini-Gesu Children’s Hospital in Rome. He signed autographs and gave away sweets and records to the young patients. He also announced his monetary donation of 100,000 pounds to the hospital;

Whereas, on July 16, 1988, Michael met the Prince of Wales and his wife Diana, where he donated 150,000 pounds for the Prince’s Trust, and a check of 100,000 pounds for the children’s hospital at Great Ormond Street;
Whereas, on July 20, 1988, Michael visited terminally ill children at Great Ormond Street Hospital. At a unit for less critical patients he stayed longer and to engage in story telling time with the children;

Whereas, on August 29, 1988, at his 30th birthday Michael performed a concert in Leeds, England, for the English charity organization ‘Give For Life’, an organization designed as an immunization charity for children. Michael presented a check for 65,000 pounds;

Whereas on January 1989, the proceeds of one of Michael’s shows in Los Angeles were donated to Childhelp USA, the biggest charity organization against child abuse. In appreciation of the contributions of Michael, Childhelp of Southern California founded the ’Michael Jackson International Institute for Research On Child Abuse’;

Whereas, on January 10, 1989, upon the winding down of his ‘Bad Tour’, Michael Jackson donated tickets for each concert to underprivileged children, and made contributions to hospitals, orphanages and charity organizations throughout each stop on his tour;

Whereas, on February 7, 1989, Michael visited the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, a site of playground violence where 5 children had been tragically killed and 39 had been wounded;

Whereas, on March 5, 1989, Michael invited 200 underprivileged children of the St. Vincent Institute for Handicapped Children and of the organization Big Brothers and Big Sisters to the Circus Vargas in Santa Barbara. Following the event, the children were invited to his ranch to visit his private Zoo at Neverland Ranch;

Whereas in December 1991, Michael’s office MJJ Productions donated more than 200 turkey dinners to needy families in Los Angeles;

Whereas in February 1992, within 11 days Michael covered 30,000 miles in Africa, to visit hospitals, orphanages, schools, churches, and institutions for mentally handicapped children;

Whereas, on February 3, 1992, at a press conference at the New York Radio City Music Hall, Michael announced that he is planning a new world tour, to raise funds for his new ‘Heal The World’ Foundation. This Foundation was designed to support the fight against AIDS, Juvenile Diabetes, the Ronald McDonald Camp, and the Make A Wish Foundation;

Whereas, on May 6, 1992, Michael defrayed the funeral expenses for Ramon Sanchez, who was killed during the Los Angeles riots;

Whereas, on June 26, 1992, Michael presented the Mayor of Munich, Mr. Kronawitter, with a 40,000 DM check for the needy people of the city;

Whereas on July 1992, Michael donated 821,477,296 Lire to La Partita del Cuore (The Heart Match) in Rome and donated 120,000 DM to children’s charities in Estonia and Latvia;

Whereas, on July 25, 1992, at his concert in Dublin, Ireland, Michael announced that he will give 400,000 pounds of the tour earnings to various charities;

Whereas in June 1993, Michael announced a donation of $1.25 million for children suffering as a result of the riots in Los Angeles;

Whereas on October 1993, Michael Jackson donated $100,000 to the Children’s Defense Fund, the Children’s Diabetes Foundation, the Atlanta Project, and the Boys and Girl Clubs of Newark, New Jersey;

Whereas on December 1993, in conjunction with the Gorbachev Foundation, Michael Jackson airlifted 60,000 doses of children’s vaccines to Tblisi, Georgia;

Whereas in 1994, Michael donated $500,000 to Elizabeth Taylor’s AIDS Foundation;

Whereas, on October 1, 1996, Michael donated the proceeds of his Tunisia concert to ‘The National Solidarity Fund’, a charity dedicated to fighting poverty;

Whereas, on December 9, 1996, during the ‘History Tour’ visit in Manila, Michael visited a Children’s Hospital, where he announced that a portion of his concert earnings will be donated to the renovation of the Hospital;

Whereas the Millennium Issue of the ‘Guinness Book Of Records’ named Michael as ‘the Pop Star who supports the most charity organizations’;

Whereas in 2004, The African Ambassadors’ Spouses Association, honored Michael Jackson for his worldwide humanitarian efforts, due to his fiscal contribution of more than $50 million to various charities, including many organizations that feed the hungry in Africa; and

Whereas we today mourn with and send our condolences to the children that Michael Jackson left behind: Prince Michael, Paris Michael, and Prince Michael II and his mother, father, brothers, and sisters: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives-

(1) recognizes Michael Jackson as a global humanitarian and a noted leader in the fight against worldwide hunger and medical crises;

(2) celebrates Michael Jackson as an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security.

Subscribe to our RSS feed to stay up to date on this resolution and see the roll call data as soon as it’s available.

Congress Links

2009-07-06T21:28:00Z

Michael Jackson fans raise money to defeat Rep. Peter King (HuffPo).

Rep. Kaptur get $3.5 billion sweetener in climate bill (Washington Times).

Bill threatens Congress’ shield from insider trading laws (Washington independent).

Mid-session House vote trend analysis (CQ).

“Obama is on pace to be the most successful Oval Office occupant in more than half a century when measured by his ability to get Congress to vote his way” (CQ).

Payday lenders argue that a 390% APR isn’t actually a bad deal (Afflicter).

The latest edition of Chris Bowers’ 2010 Senate predictions (Open Left).

Al Franken, policy wonk (Yglesias).

Will Harry Reid’s “gentle persuasion” be enough to pass climate change legislation? (The Vine

Sen. Whitehouse says a second stimulus is “probably needed” (Glenn Thrush).

Legislative support – votes and co-sponsors – on a map (Bill Maps).

Sen. Kohl wants an investigation of deceptive cell phone company practices (WaPo).

Treasury ready to twist arms over consumer protections agency (Reuters).

Anti-gay Reps. use an Elton John concert to raise cash (Party Time).

Have a link to share? Send it to us here.

Cash and Connections

2009-07-06T13:13:00Z

The Washington Post has some shocking numbers on the insider, big-money fight against a public health insurance option:

The nation’s largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post’s analysis.

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

What's Happening With the Big Issues in Congress (7/6/09)

2009-07-06T13:05:00Z

Today begins what is probably the most important month in Congress and the Obama Administration’s work on reforming the health care system and addressing the issue of climate change. On August 7, Congress will leave for a month-long recess. Between now and then, they hope to pass bills for both of those issues in both chambers, confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and finalize work on a number of appropriations bills that are necessary to keep the government up and running. Below is a quick update on where things stand with four of the biggest issues currently before Congress — health care, climate change, financial regulatory reform and immigration.

Health Care

The House, with their strong Democratic majority, is in a good spot to pass their version of a health care bill before they leave for the month-long summer recess on August 15. But the Senate, which, with the addition of Al Franken, has exactly as many Democrats as the number of votes that are needed to pass a bill outside of the budget process, is still trying to resolves some big differences that are threatening to keep the Democrats divided.

The biggest issue is still whether or not the government should set up and manage a new health care service, similar to Medicare, to compete on a level playing field with the private insurers. On Sunday, Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] came out with a strong prediction that any health care bill that comes out of Congress will contain a so called public option. “Make no mistake about it, the president is for this strongly. There will be a public option in the final bill,” Schumer said on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Schumer sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which is the only committee in Congress with jurisdiction over the bill that has not thrown its support behind a public option. As he noted on Sunday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the full House of Representatives and the Obama Administration all support a public option.

The public option plan got a boost last week from a new report showing that its inclusion makes health care reform legislation cheaper and more effective. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a non-partisan entity in charge of attaching budget number to proposed bills in Congress, released a report showing that the HELP Committee’s bill that includes a public option would cost considerably less than what had originally been reported. The CBO’s new report estimated that the bill would cost about $600 billion over ten years. A previous estimate, which was based on an incomplete bill that, for one, did not contain a public option, estimated the bill to cost $1.1 trillion. Furthermore, the new report estimates that the bill will cover 97 percent of the population, a significant improvement over that last estimate.

Despite the good news from the CBO, Roll Call is reporting that the Democrats’ health care timeline may be slipping. Besides logistical concerns with the Senate’s busy floor schedule of must-pass legislation and confirmations, Democrats face the tenuous task of combining the Finance Committee’s more conservative bill with the HELP Committee’s more progressives one. “The goal is to complete the tricky merger of the HELP and Finance Committee bills, with the floor fracas over a final bill put off until after Labor Day,” the article notes. Other challenges Democrats will face include the usual dilatory tactics from Republicans and the possibility of defections from labor unions and the left if the final Senate bill does not contain a robust enough public option or if it would levy a tax on companies that don’t provide insurance for their employees as a way to pay for reform.

Climate Change

Now that the Waxman-Markely climate change bill has passed the House (with just one vote to spare), all eyes are on the Senate, where prospects appear dimmer than they ever did in the House. Jim Tankersley for the L.A. Times reports:

President Obama’s landmark energy and global warming bill squeaked through the House only after the White House made dozens of concessions to coal, manufacturing and other interests.

Now, as the battle moves to the Senate, Obama faces demands for even more concessions – including pressure to open the nation’s coastlines to offshore oil and gas drilling.

The Senate also will take up a series of controversial issues that were glossed over or omitted from the House legislation. Among them: giving the government sweeping powers to approve thousands of miles of new transmission lines to carry electric power to coastal cities from wind turbines in the upper Midwest and solar power generators in the Southwest, regardless of local objections.

On the other hand, political stats expert Nate Silver has run an analysis that suggests the Senate already has the votes to pass the bill. His analysis is based on research on the House’s vote, looking at things like lobbying contributions, per-capita emissions, lawmakers’ ideology, district unemployment rate and poverty level. When applied to the Senate, Silver’s model finds 53 senators who are likely to vote in favor of a cap-and-trade bill (including Maine Republicans Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins), and somewhere between 62 and 66 who are possible “yeses” depending on specific details of the bill that have yet to be worked out. That means that there are about 15 key senators that negotiations over the bill will be focused around with the goal of attaining support from at least half of them.

The actual negotiations will be more dynamic than Silver’s analysis suggests. For example, Silver’s analysis puts Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] at 99.92 % certain to vote for the bill, but if the bill moves too far to the right – say, by weakening the cap-and-trade program and adding lots of offshore drilling – it’s not hard to imagine Sanders voting “no.” We saw this happen in the House with liberal Representatives like Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] and Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4] voting with Republicans and conservative Democrats against the bill.

The Senate will be building their climate change legislation from the ground up. On Tuesday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee. Later in the week, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing looking at International Trade Considerations involved in the legislation and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Industrial Competitiveness Under Climate Policies: Lessons from Europe.”

Financial Regulation

There is not a whole lot going on on the financial regulations front this week besides a few committee hearings in the House. Most notably, on Friday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will be back in front of the House FInancial Services Committee to talk about his plan to regulate the over-the-couter derivatives market. You can read more about Geithner’s OTC derivatives plan via Bloomberg.

On Thursday, the same committee will hear from Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn and a handful of economists on “balancing the independence of the Federal Reserve in monetary policy with systemic risk regulation.” The Obama Administration’s plan to put the Fed in charge of regulating systemic risks in financial markets has emerged as the major stumbling block to getting the broader regulatory overhaul through Congress.

On Wednesday the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will look at what is probably the most popular part of Obama’s regulatory overhaul proposal in a hearing entitled, “The Proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency: Implications For Consumers And The FTC.”

Immigration

On June 19, President Obama stood up before the Esperanza National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast and Conference and promised to do everything he can to get immigration reform done. “I’m committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform as President of the United States” he said. On June 25, at a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress, he reiterated his commitment. “The President wants a comprehensive reform done this year or, at the latest, at the beginning of next year,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner [D, NY-9], who was at the meeting.

But, in Congress, immigration reform is taking a back seat to climate change and health care, and probably also to reforming financial regulations. Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] is working on writing an immigration bill, which, at the current pace of things, likely won’t be brought to the Senate for a debate until 2010. Ruben Navarrette Jr. wrote recently in the Washington Post about the prospects from immigration reform this year:

The calendar: “Right now” might not be soon enough. The conventional wisdom is that the longer Obama waits, the harder it will be to pass any immigration reform legislation. One immigration activist I spoke with even had a deadline in mind: March 2010. Congress has to discuss the bill this fall, he said, and pass it no later than next spring. His thinking – and that of many others – is that the 2010 midterm elections might cut into the Democratic majority in Congress, and then the chance for immigration reform could slip away.

The flaw with such reasoning is that it assumes Republicans are the main obstacle to reform, and that, conversely, Democrats must be the main facilitators. Yet Republicans are under a lot of pressure from business groups to fix the immigration system so companies can more easily hire workers. As for Democrats, they were the ones carrying the ball in 2007, the last time Congress fumbled the chance at reform. […]

Guest workers: In 2007, Democrats were caught in a tough spot between trying to please Hispanic voters who wanted immigration reform and unions willing to kill the deal if they couldn’t manage to remove the language on guest workers. This time, Democrats have figured a way out. They’re prepared to simply steer clear of the whole issue of guest workers and propose legislation that focuses only on enhanced border enforcement and a pathway to legalization.

This was the take from a speech that Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York – the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration – gave last month at an event sponsored by the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute. Schumer is going to write the immigration bill. And in laying out what he considered to be key elements, he omitted any reference to guest workers.

Yet if guest workers are off the menu, don’t expect Republicans to sit down at the table. Even immigration moderates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have drawn a line in the sand and assured the White House that if guest workers aren’t part of the final bill, they won’t support it.

Trending on OpenCongress

2009-07-02T16:23:00Z

Unsurprisingly, the recently voted-upon Cap-and-Trade bill has been dominating the discourse and attention of OpenCongress users this past week. Behind all that action, however, users have kept on voting on bills, members, and issue areas via our Battle Royal function. Here are some highlights of those trending bills, which we didn’t want to slip by, unnoticed.

1. H.R.2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Voted on a quarter hour before the House began its debate of the climate change bill, this bill grants appropriations to agencies within the Department of the Interior, departments related to health and the environment, and a third group of assorted agencies ranging from the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 254-173 with three amendments, largely refocusing $37 million in funding to environmental restoration projects. On a less predictable note, however, the last amendment touches on the U.S. government’s efforts to mitigate the national demand and traffic of illicit drugs. The amendment more specifically provides funding for efforts related to removing marijuana sites and clandestine methamphetamine labs from the National Forest System as well as prohibiting drug traffickers on NFS lands bordering Canada and Mexico.

2. H.R.634: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

This bill seeks to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion by deeming such traffic to be a de facto violation of parental rights and the parental notification requirements of some states. Similarly the bill seeks to criminalize physicians who, knowingly, perform such abortions. As abortion is an extremely contentious issue, for which semantics play a vital role, the bill explicitly defines it’s desired scope of abortion and makes provisionary exceptions for abortions needed to save the life of the minor involved.

This same legislation was sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] in the 109th congress where it and its companion bill passed both the House and the Senate but never came into law when differences between the two chambers’ versions of the bill could not be reached. An identical bill died after being introduced in the following Congressional session, even while carrying more co-sponsors than the current bill’s count of 120 republican and blue dog democrat supporters. This congressional session’s version of the bill has been shifting committee hands since its introduction in January.

3. H.J.Res.47: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States

Instead of gaining attention in anticipation of this weekend’s symbolic festivities, this self-explanatory legislation has been “cooling down” among OpenCongress voters. What is notable about this declining trend is that it mirrors the corresponding enthusiasm held by House Representatives. While this resolution has attracted 49 co-sponsors, such support is relatively tame in comparison to previous congressional terms.

The first Flag Protection Act was passed by the 90th Congress in 1968 as a response to protests against the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision in the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case by a 5-4 vote, declaring the act as an unconstitutional restriction of public expression. Since then Congress has sought to pass similar legislation every congressional term, always in the form of a constitutional amendment.

Beginning with the 104th Congress, the resolution actually received the two-thirds majority needed to pass in the House of Representatives for five consecutive congressional sessions. Despite this success, flag desecration bills have been attracting fewer and fewer co-sponsors and that of the 110th Congress ultimately died in committee.

Contrastingly the history of this legislation in the upper chamber cannot be characterized with any success or consistency. While these companion resolutions have largely died in committee, S.J.Res.12, one of the fire desecration bills of that term, came short of passing by one vote in the 109th Congress.

Not only are trends among Congress member and OpenCongress user support comparable, debate surrounding these bills also bares similarity to the comments posted on the H.J.Res.47 page. Proponents and opponents generally argue along the dichotomy between protecting a national symbol and protecting free speech.
Indeed this was the tone of Rep.Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8], the bill’s sponsor, who stated in a press release that:

The American flag is more than a symbol, especially to the American men and women who have served in uniform, putting their lives at risk for our country with the flag stitched on their sleeves. People who desecrate our flag don’t fully understand, and certainly do not respect, the service of these Americans in defense of our freedoms.

in contrast to Justice Joseph Brennan’s argument against Congress’ 1968 flag protection act stating that

the principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. (Distressed Patriot)

4. H.R.3022: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans

Lastly, as the house was getting ready to debate the cap and trade bill on Friday, Rep. Ron Paul [R, TX-14] introduced an old favorite. Unambiguously, this bill seeks to repeal previous restrictions on firearms. Similar to H.J.Res.47, this legislation has experienced recent trending on OpenCongress and repeated attention in Congress. Rep. Paul has introduced identical bills to H.R.3022 since his appointment to the 105th Congress in 1997, all of which have attracted progressively fewer co-sponsors and died while in committee.
His reasons for repeatedly supporting and sponsoring legislation against gun control flows from the argument that:

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right.

See here, too, for more reflections from Rep. Paul regarding the above-mentioned Flag burning legislation.