Open Congress : Blog

Obama and Pelosi Talk Stimulus

2009-01-05T13:32:00Z

President-elect Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi today after a private meeting to discuss the economic stimulus package:

EFCA Without Card-Check?

2009-01-05T12:23:00Z

Over at the corner, Peter Kirsanow writes that when the Employee Free Choice Act (link to bill in 110th) comes up for a vote, what has generally been considered its main provision, card-check union certification, won’t even be included in it:

There’s increasing speculation that the Employee Free Choice Act won’t be taken up within the first 100 days of the Obama administration and that when it does come up for vote, the card check provision will be either diluted or stripped from the bill entirely.

Ever since Nov. 4 employers have been apoplectic that a Democratic president plus huge Democratic majorities in Congress meant the EFCA juggernaut couldn’t be stopped. Consequently, removal or dilution of the card check provision would be met with relief by employer groups.

That relief would be misplaced. For some time, experts close to the EFCA debate have maintained that the strategy of EFCA proponents was to compromise on either the bill’s card check provision or the mandatory arbitration provision in order to enhance the probability that at least one of those provisions would pass. Some contended that mandatory arbitration was always the principal goal of EFCA supporters.

Eliminating or modifying card check might quell concerns about “instant” unionization, but mandatory arbitration is no less troubling. EFCA opponents who concede mandatory arbitration in exchange for a more palatable card check provision are making a strategic error.

Here’s how the arbitration provision works:

If a newly formed union and an employer can’t reach a first-contract agreement within 90 days, either party may request mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If after 30 days of mediation, they still can’t reach an agreement, the FMCS will refer the dispute to an arbitration panel that will render a decision to settle the dispute. The panel’s decision will be binding for 2 years, unless both parties agree to drop it and renegotiate.

The AFL-CIO cites a study by John Paul Ferguson at MIT that found that “44 percent of newly certified unions fail to get a first contract.” They current rules dictating first contracts are too lenient on employers who bargain in bad faith and incentivize employers to delay bargaining by withdrawing the union’s presumption of majority status after one year without a contract, they argue.

On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation argues that binding arbitration is a bad deal for workers:

The most obvious consequence is that employees could be stuck working for less than they might get at another company. And because of the way that binding arbitration affects some obscure provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, workers would be stuck with the union that very well may have let them down, perhaps by not accepting a better offer from management when it had the chance or by putting on a poor presentation in front of the arbitration panel.

The Employee Free Choice Act is expected to be taken up by the House soon, maybe next week. We’ll be watching for the new bill, and then watching down the road to see if there is a coup created to oust card-check.

The Obama Tax Cuts

2009-01-05T01:20:00Z

The Wall Street Journal is reporting the details of the tax relief portion of Obama’s economic-stimulus package proposal:

President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion in tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.

The size of the proposed tax cuts – which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years – is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated, and may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely relatively heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.

The Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts did in their first two years. Mr. Bush’s 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, considered the largest in history, contained $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. The second-largest tax cut – the 10-year, $350 billion package engineered by Mr. Bush’s in 2003 – contained $231 billion in 2004 and 2005.

The bulk of the tax cuts in the bill would be aimed at the low end of the income scale and would be capped at $200,000 or so. This is basically Obama’s “Making Work Pay” credit proposal from the campaign – a tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per couple, including those that make too little to pay income taxes. There’s also a smattering of business tax credits, including the ability for companies to apply last year’s losses against previous years’ liabilities, and some mechanism for lowering or eliminating taxes on new equipment investments.

A lot of this is still in the works, and we’ll have to see some actual legislation before we begin pulling out the little devils. Also, if the goal here is to attract Republican support, using 40 percent of the stimulus for tax cuts seems a bit like overkill, considering that Democrats will have nearly 60 percent of the voting share in Congress. After all, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already said that he expects Senate Republicans to back the stimulus package as long as the Democrats “pursue a fair process…and give both sides an opportunity to have input.” Congress gets final say on what’s in the stimulus package, so it seems possible that with such a strong Democratic majority this tax section could get tweaked a bit to free up more money for things like food stamps, unemployment insurance and infrastructure projects.

Obama's 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan'

2009-01-03T14:32:00Z

In his weekly radio and video address this morning, President-elect Obama gave the most detailed description yet of his economic stimulus proposal:

Here are the five things he says the stimulus will do:

double renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient;

engage contractors across the nation to create jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools;

update and computerize our health care system to cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help reduce health care costs by billions of dollars each year;

build 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries;

provide direct tax relief to 95 percent of American workers.

Obama will meet with Democrat and Republican congressional leaders on Monday to negotiate the size and scope of the stimulus package, and on Wednesday the House Steering and Policy Committee will hold the first hearing of the 111th Congress to discuss the proposal.

Catching Up

2009-01-02T15:53:00Z

Between road tripping up the East Coast, weathering a Nor’easter and celebrating 2009, I’ve lost track of the Congress rumor mill a bit. So, rather than try to fall right back into step, here’s a rundown of what’s been happening over the past few days with some of the major themes shaping up as the 111th Congress gets ready to convene on Tuesday.

The Stimulus Package

The first steps for passing the stimulus package, which is expected to cost about $775 billion over two years, will be a meeting between President-elect Barack Obama and congressional leaders on Monday and a Democrats-only committee hearing on Wednesday.

The Obamas will be officially moving to Washington D.C. on Monday, and as Sasha and Malia start up at their new school, Barack will have his first set of meetings with Congress to begin negotiating the size and scope of the stimulus package he is pushing.

On Wednesday, the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee will hear testimony from several economists and begin to nail down the Democatic Caucus’ priorities for inclusion in the legislation. “This hearing will build upon the stimulus package the House passed in September and the numerous hearings held by our other committees, to ensure we make the necessary investments in an innovative and bold way to strengthen the economy,” Nancy Pelosi said in her announcement of the hearing. It’s still unclear whether the stimulus will go through other committees before it is brought to a vote before the full House and passed by the expanded Democratic majority.

Republicans are hoping that they process will be slowed down a bit. “I would ask the Democratic leadership to guarantee that such a bill will not be brought to the floor of the House unless there have been public hearings in the appropriate committees, the entire text has been available online for the American people to review for at least one week, and it includes no special-interest earmarks,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) earlier this week.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden said last week that the stimulus “will not become a Christmas tree” for lawmakers’ pet projects. But the $73 billion wish list of infrastructure projects that state and local officials have submitted to Obama includes a lot of things that sound like classic pork:

By all accounts, the $73 billion wish list may be the largest collection of parochial spending projects in American history. Strolling through the 800 pages, we found such beauties as: $1 million to upgrade the Los Angeles County Convention Center elevated “catwalk” for cameras and lighting; $350,000 for an Albuquerque, N.M., fitness center; $94 million for a parking garage at the Orange Bowl in Miami; $4.5 million for Gretna, Florida, to bottle water with recyclable bottles; a $35 million music hall of fame in Florissant, Missouri, and $3.1 million for a swimming pool in Tulsa.

Patrick Ruffini gives us a hint as to what the Republican stimulus strategy might be:

As a matter of practical reality, our numbers in the Senate and House are such that no Republican proposal will become law. The opportunity to finesse the Democratic stimulus is not there because the playing field is titled so far in the Democrats’ direction. With hopeless minorities, we are freer to demonstrate what we would do in an ideal governing situation, instead of trying to make the White House’s proposal less bad.

The best strategy is to create a nucleus of energy around a proposal as diametrically opposed to President Obama’s as humanly possible, thus pulling the eventual Gang of 14 to 20 “compromise” as far to the right as can be mustered.

If some sort of fiscal expansion is a given, and there is no way to paint a more modest set of permanent tax cuts as unreasonable when compared to an $800 billion stimulus, we might as well take this opportunity to have a public debate about the best way to stimulate the economy: tax cuts or spending hikes. To do that, though, the official Republican position on spending needs to be as clean as the driven snow.

Filling the Senate

Senate Democrats are prepared to use police force to block Roland Burris:

The aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders’ plans said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber, the Senate doorkeeper will stop Burris. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol Police would stop him, said the aide.

“They (police) probably won’t arrest him” but they would call the sergeant-at-arms,” the aide said.

Some thoughts on the matter from Chris Bowers:

It is more than a little worrying that the only moment when Senate Democrats decide to take the gloves off is to block a Democrat who was legally appointed to the Senate from being seated. Kind of makes you think that Senate Democrats are more willing to stand up to other Democrats than they are to Republicans.

Sounds like Caroline Kennedy will be the new Senator from New York:

Officials say the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy will be the governor’s choice to fill the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Two people close to Gov. David Paterson tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be his choice, but the governor cautions he’s still looking.

And we’ve got a replacement for Ken Salazar in Colorado:

Denver Public Schools superintendent Michael Bennet will be named Saturday as the future U.S. Senate replacement for Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar, according to two Democratic sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Gov. Bill Ritter is expected to name Bennet on Saturday, ending a brief but frenzied period of speculation about who will take the seat of Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar.

Though he’s never run for office, Bennet, 44, has strong connections to Colorado’s power base: He’s been the school superintendent for 31/2 years and was Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s chief of staff. He also was managing director of Anschutz Investment Co from 1997-2003.

Blocking Burris

2008-12-30T15:42:00Z

Been reading the major precedent opinion, Powell vs McCormick, wherein SCOTUS ruled that Congress can only deny the seating of a member-elect if they don’t meet the criteria laid out in the Constitution. After going through several conflicting historical instances in which the courts did not intervene, we reach the conclusion:

Had the intent of the Framers emerged from these materials with less clarity, we would nevertheless have been compelled to resolve any ambiguity in favor of a narrow construction of the scope of Congress’ power to exclude members-elect. A fundamental principle of our representative democracy is, in Hamilton’s words, ‘that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.’ 2 Elliot’s Debates 257. As Madison pointed out at the Convention, this principle is undermined as much by limiting whom the people can select as by limiting the franchise itself. In apparent agreement with this basic philosophy, the Convention adopted his suggestion limiting the power to expel. To allow essentially that same power to be exercised under the guise of judging qualifications, would be to ignore Madison’s warning, borne out in the Wilkes case and some of Congress’ own post-Civil War exclusion cases, against ‘vesting an improper & dangerous power in the Legislature.’ 2 Farrand 249. Moreover, it would effectively nullify the Convention’s decision to require a two-thirds vote for expulsion. Unquestionably, Congress has an interest in preserving its institutional integrity, but in most cases that interest can be sufficiently safeguarded by the exercise of its power to punish its members for disorderly behavior and, in extreme cases, to expel a member with the concurrence of two-thirds. In short, both the intention of the Framers, to the extent it can be determined, and an examination of the basic principles of our democratic system persuade us that the Constitution does not vest in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by a majority vote.

For these reasons, we have concluded that Art. I, § 5, is at most a ‘textually demonstrable commitment’ to Congress to judge only the qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution. Therefore, the ‘textual commitment’ formulation of the political question doctrine does not bar federal courts from adjudicating petitioners’ claims.

Here are the qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

So, it sounds like a “no” to me; the Senate doesn’t have the authority to block Burris outright.

But there seem to be two other options for keeping Burris out of the Senate: filibuster the reading of his certificate of appointment, or let the oath of office be administered and then hold a vote to expel him by a 2/3rds majority. Either one is going to be kind of uncomfortable. The former could tie up the Senate for weeks and delay work on the big stimulus package, while the later carries the risk of failure. Will 2/3rds of the Senate actually be willing to go down on the record with a vote to expel the only black member?

Blagojevich to Appoint Obama Replacement

2008-12-30T12:51:00Z

Apparently Rod Blagojevich is going to appoint former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris this afternoon to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat.

Chicago Tribune:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Shortly after Obama’s Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich’s arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor’s support.

Though he is 71, Burris has said that Obama’s replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, he’s never lost to a Republican.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Ben Smith at Politico that Reid views Burris as “unacceptable,” and that the Senate will not seat him. But as an astute TPM reader points out, the Senate may not actually have the power to block appointments.

In Powell vs McCormick, a 1969 case involving Adam Clayton Powell, the Supreme Court said, 7-2, that a house of Congress does NOT have such power-they can judge “qualifications” in the Constitutional sense (age, citizenship, etc). And they can judge elections, but say nothing about appointments. (Nate Silver did a great piece on this awhile back).

They can probably EXPEL a member as they see fit – though the Court’s decision does not make that clear – but on what grounds? Just because they don’t like the guy who picked him?

If Burris is seated, he will be the only black Member of the Senate.

UPDATE: Senate Democrats have now issued a full statement making clear that they do not approve of Burris’ appointment:

“It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

Read the full statement here.

The Year in Voting

2008-12-26T00:04:00Z

CQ has released their 2008 vote comparison report for the Senate and the House – go check it out. The report takes into consideration how often lawmakers votes with the majority of their party, how often they vote with the President (when the President makes clear his position), and how often they show up to vote. You can view all the information in a searchable and sortable table for finding stats on your members of Congress and for drilling down to get into the details, or in an interactive graph that lets you visualize it in a few different ways.

I’ve been having fun playing around with it (but I’m kind of a geek about this stuff). Here are some of the data points that stood out to me:

John McCain, who bragged infamously about voting with President Bush over 90 percent of the time, voted with Bush more often than any other senator in 2008 (though he was only present to vote 20 percent of the time, so his score probably doesn’t represent his position fairly).

Senators from Maine are not loyal. Both of them, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, voted with their party, the Republicans, less than half of the time. They are the only two members of the Senate with party-unity scores under 50 percent.

Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), who lost his re-election bid in November, is a major outlier among House Democrats. He was by far the least loyal Democrat,voting least often with his party and most often with Bush.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) voted with President Bush less often than at least 19 House Democrats.

Evan Bayh (D-IN) has the lowest party-untiy rating of any Democrat in the Senate – 65 percent.

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) votes with Bush as often as the least loyal Senate Democrat, Mary Landrieu (D-LA). But he votes with Democrats more often than at least six Democratic Senators.

While voting participation is pretty solid in the Senate, in the House only two lawmakers had 100 percent participation ratings: Jesse Jackson (D-IL) and Jason Altmire (D-PA).

The Senate Gets Final Say

2008-12-24T17:49:00Z

Not very likely, but Fox News reminds us of a frightening scenario for filling the Senate’s still-vacant seats:

While the scenario seems far-fetched, Article I, Section 5 of Constitution holds that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

In other words, if Minnesota certifies either Norm Coleman or Al Franken the winner, a bloc of senators could object on the Senate floor to seating him. The same could happen if embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appoints a “tainted” successor to Obama.

If that happens, it could mean months, not weeks, for Congress to get that massive economic rescue package to Obama for his signature.

A review of the election of Sen. Theodore Bilbo, D-Miss., tied the Senate in knots in early 1947. Bilbo was accused of corruption. Sen. Glen Taylor, D-Idaho., demanded the Senate settle the ethics issues before seating Bilbo.

Taylor’s actions stymied the Senate. Senators couldn’t elect party leaders or even a president pro tempore—the position third in line to the presidency. In fact, the secretary of Senate presided over the body for weeks.

Dividing the Democrats

2008-12-22T20:53:00Z

The Politico has a story today explaining how Republicans in the Senate are planning to split the Democrats next year to block legislation rather than focus on holding their own party together. Republicans had great success blocking legislation in the last session of Congress by voting as a solid block against cloture motions, which require a 60-vote majority to overcome. But with a Democratic majority of either 58-42 or 59-41 in the 111th (depending on the outcome of the Minnesota recount), that strategy isn’t going to work. On most cloture votes in the last session, a handful of Republicans would cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats.

Senate Republicans say they’re ready to work across the aisle with Barack Obama, but it’s not exactly a mission of mercy: Republicans senators hope to dodge charges of obstructionism — and they won’t mind if they drive a wedge between Obama and congressional Democrats in the process.

“In our quest to do good policy, we’re going to find a lot more areas of commonality with Obama than we are with House and Senate Democrats,” said one senior Senate GOP aide. “When Obama and congressional Republicans do work together, the byproduct of that is in-fighting on the left.”

If Obama and the GOP broker deals that split Democrats in Congress, it could create the same sort of disarray that contributed to the collapses of the GOP majority ahead of the 2006 midterm elections and the Democratic majority in 1994.

Look for freshman Democrats from states that switched parties in the November elections – Jeanne Sheehan (D-NH), Mark Begich (D-AK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Mark Warner (D-VA) – to be primary targets for Republicans to try to pick off. Even though their states have been trending blue in the past couple cycles, there’s probably going to be some insecurity among them about their constituents’ support for liberal causes.

And in case you’re wondering, the key Republicans that Democrats will be looking to for cross-over support:

Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]