Article 599
August 12, 2008 02:08 PM (25 days ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Hey jsgarvin, Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. The $15,000 threshold is for candidates running for a seat in Congress. Under, Congress' ethics bill, the $15,000 threshold applies to lobbyists giving bundled funds to any federal candidate or officeholder, leadership PAC, or political party, which includes presidential candidates. Obama's bill creates a new, higher threshold for presidential candidates. Here's how it's stated in the bill summary: "Increases the applicable threshold triggering such reporting requirement from $15,000 (currently applicable to any authorized committee of a candidate, a leadership PAC, or a political party committee) to $50,000 in the case of a presidential candidate committee."

Article 573
July 27, 2008 07:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

That's Harry Reid at a press conference on the bill after the Senate passed it yesterday.

Article 563
July 24, 2008 03:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

In case anyone's interested, here's Picken's website for his plan: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

Article 557
July 22, 2008 04:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

It's in there. See the link I posted above in the update.

Article 557
July 21, 2008 04:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

I haven't seen any specific mention of this in relation to the omnibus, but Coburn is guessing it will contain "over 100" bills, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is included. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1738/show

Article 557
July 21, 2008 04:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

The Senatus blog posted some info on a letter Corbun sent to Reid today RE: the omnibus. http://senatus.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/coburn-omnibus-bill-update-letter-to-reid-possible-agreements/ Coburn writes: "The omnibus is likely to cost around $25 billion when the costs of all of the bills are added together. I would request an expedited Congressional Budget Office analysis and score be made available to all Senators prior to the omnibus' floor consideration." Of course, it's still in development, so this is a very rough guess. Also, on your second point about the floor debate, check out the potential agreements Coburn offers for how it could be conducted.

Article 548
July 17, 2008 04:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Yup, here it is: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr1345/show

H.R.6304
July 14, 2008 04:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Check out these awesome flow charts explaining how this bill changes the old FISA law: http://tinyurl.com/6s4go4

Article 548
July 11, 2008 01:07 AM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Not yet. I'll post it to this blog once it has been given an official number.

H.Con.Res.362
July 9, 2008 03:07 PM (about 1 month ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

My local free weekly, the Valley Advocate, reported this week that Rep. Barney Frank has changed his mind and is withdrawing his support of this bill. He is an official co-spnosor, and is no doubt changing his mind because of the public's vocal opposition to the bill. Always good to see a Congressmen engaged at this level. http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=7937

Article 529
June 26, 2008 12:06 AM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Bryan Rasmussen at O'Reilly News did exactly this. Check it out: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/535-Congress-in-a-Wordle

Article 531
June 24, 2008 08:06 PM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 1

We're going to make this a possibility soon. I'll announce in this space and on the OpenCongress blog when it's ready to go.

H.R.6304
June 23, 2008 09:06 AM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 10.0 | Replies: 0

Kevin Drum has a great post looking at parts of this bill other than the much-discussed telecom immunity provision. The bill will allow the NSA to engage in wholesale data monitoring of communications that sometimes involve U.S. persons. It's a process based on a software algorithm, and he raises important questions about how oversight of a complex program like this is conducted. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_06/013956.php "The oversight on this stuff is inherently weak. After all, no court can seriously evaluate algorithms like this and neither can Congress. They don't have the technical chops. Do the algorithms use ethnic background as one of their parameters? Membership in suspect organizations? Associations with foreigners? Residence in specific neighborhoods? Nobody knows, and no layman can know, because these things most likely emerge from other parameters rather than being used as direct inputs to the algorithm. For all practical purposes, then, the decision about which U.S. citizens to spy on is being vested in a small group of technicians operating in secret and creating criteria that virtually no one else understands. The new bill requires annual review by Inspectors General of the government's compliance with targeting and minimization procedures, which is better than nothing, but stronger amendments aimed at limiting the targeting of U.S. citizens were specifically rejected."

Article 531
June 20, 2008 02:06 PM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 1

If you click "Login to 'My OpenCongress'" at the top of any page on OpenCongress, an option for "OpenID login" will appear in a pop-up. Click that link and it will take you to a login screen where you can enter your OpenID name. Let us know if you're still having trouble getting to that page - writeus at opencongress dot org.

Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7]
June 19, 2008 02:06 PM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

John Culberson twitters from the House floor: http://twitter.com/johnculberson

H.R.5749
June 14, 2008 06:06 PM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Noticed this op-ed in the NYTimes - seems relevant to some of the discussions taking place on this page: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/opinion/14herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin Despite the focus on the housing crisis, gasoline prices and the economy in general, the press has not done a good job capturing the intense economic anxiety — and even dread, in some cases — that has gripped tens of millions of working Americans, including many who consider themselves solidly middle class. Working families are not just changing their travel plans and tightening up on purchases at the mall. There is real fear and a great deal of suffering out there. A man who described himself as a conscientious worker who has always pinched his pennies wrote the following to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont: “This winter, after keeping the heat just high enough to keep my pipes from bursting (the bedrooms are not heated and never got above 30 degrees) I began selling off my woodworking tools, snowblower, (pennies on the dollar) and furniture that had been handed down in my family from the early 1800s, just to keep the heat on. “Today I am sad, broken, and very discouraged. I am thankful that the winter cold is behind us for a while, but now gas prices are rising yet again. I just can’t keep up.” The people we have heard the least from in this epic campaign season have been the voters — ordinary Americans. We get plenty of polling data and alleged trends, but we don’t hear the voices of real people.

H.R.6209
June 12, 2008 06:06 PM (2 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

(a) Regulation Required- Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) a regulation that provides, in connection with any video programming that is broadcast or that is distributed by any multichannel video programming distributor, that-- (1) advertisements accompanying such video programming shall not be excessively noisy or strident; (2) such advertisements shall not be presented at modulation levels substantially higher than the program material that such advertisements accompany; and (3) the average maximum loudness of such advertisements shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany. (b) Definitions- For purposes of this section, the terms `video programming' and `multichannel video programming distributor' have the meanings given such terms in section 602 of Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522).

H.R.5749
June 4, 2008 07:06 PM (3 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Yes, definitely.

H.R.5749
June 4, 2008 06:06 PM (3 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Just found this report from CBPP explaining that Unemployment Insurance is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus. http://www.cbpp.org/11-15-01tax.htm Excerpt: The key objective of an economic stimulus is to expand demand for goods and services. The more that any stimulus measure adds to spending, the more effective it will be in short-circuiting the economic slowdown. Unemployment insurance is a particularly effective stimulus. Not surprisingly, job loss is often associated with a decline in consumption, which then reduces demand for other goods and services as part of a negative cycle of increasing unemployment and declining economic activity. The unemployment insurance program helps to break this negative cycle: By partially compensating for lost income, it lessens the reduction in spending that unemployment can cause. The crucial role played by unemployment benefits in limiting declines in consumer spending is underscored by recent academic research showing that the amount a family spends on food falls by seven percent, on average, when the head of a household becomes unemployed but would decline by 22 percent in the absence of unemployment benefits.(2) Other research confirms that the unemployment insurance system has been an extremely effective mechanism for stabilizing the economy during a downturn.(3) Both unemployment insurance and the tax system are "automatic stabilizers" — they help to reduce the severity of a recession by automatically supporting spending during a downturn. Recent academic research has shown that, dollar for dollar, the UI system is eight times as effective as the entire tax system in mitigating the impact of a recession.

S.2913
May 28, 2008 05:05 PM (3 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Lawrence Lessig had an op-ed in the NY Times last week about this bill explaining not only why he thinks it's unfair, but how it could be improved. Here's the gist: "The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans. The change is also unwise, because for all this unfairness, it simply wouldn’t do much good. The uncertain standard of the bill doesn’t offer any efficient opportunity for libraries or archives to make older works available, because the cost of a “diligent effort” is not going to be cheap. The only beneficiaries would be the new class of “diligent effort” searchers who would be a drain on library budgets." For the sake of saving space on the comment board, I'll paste in the link for you to check out Lessig's recommendations: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?scp=1&sq=orphan+works&st=nyt

H.R.5889
May 28, 2008 05:05 PM (3 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 1

Lawrence Lessig had an op-ed in the NY Times last week about this bill explaining not only why he thinks it's unfair, but how it could be improved. Here's the gist: "The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans. The change is also unwise, because for all this unfairness, it simply wouldn’t do much good. The uncertain standard of the bill doesn’t offer any efficient opportunity for libraries or archives to make older works available, because the cost of a “diligent effort” is not going to be cheap. The only beneficiaries would be the new class of “diligent effort” searchers who would be a drain on library budgets." For the sake of saving space on the comment board, I'll paste in the link for you to check out Lessig's recommendations: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?scp=1&sq=orphan+works&st=nyt

Article 485
April 28, 2008 01:04 PM (4 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Yeah. The bill would lead to the creation of this website. Actually, there could be several visual registry websites created under the bill. It would put in place a certification process for the Copyright Office to approve commercially produced registries. A lot of visual artists are worried that it would cost too much money and take too much time to digitize all their work and post it to these sites. They also seem to be worried that people may successfully make a legal argument that looking up a work in the registries constitutes a "diligent search." Seems like an issue that could potentially be taken care of in the best search practices that are to be drawn up by the Register of Copyrights. A work does not have to be registered to be copyrighted, and the best practices should reflect this fact. Here's Public knowledge's visual registry proposal (PDF): http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-visualregistry-memo-20070129.pdf

H.R.5749
April 26, 2008 07:04 PM (4 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

There's simple way to eliminate spam on this site. Just register an account, log in, and click "No" for all comments that you don't think are useful. Once five people click "No" for a comment, it will be filtered out.

Article 469
April 11, 2008 05:04 PM (4 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

The vote yesterday only affected presidential fast track authority as it relates to the U.S.-Columbia FTA bill. It created an exception exclusively for that bill.

S.2544
April 10, 2008 07:04 PM (4 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Somebody just mentioned this page on digg.com in conjunction with a NYT article on extending unemployment benefits. Digg.com is a news site with a huge audience -- it may be worth quickly registering an account there and "digging" this to get it to the front page where thousands of people will see it. http://digg.com/politics/A_call_to_extend_unemployment_benefits

Article 469
April 10, 2008 07:04 PM (4 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Hi Anonymous, Yes, of course Clyburn's explanation is basically talking point material. That's why I also provided links to two articles that attempt to give deeper explanations of what is behind the Democrats' move here.

S.2690
March 19, 2008 07:03 PM (5 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Here's a really good picture of what Braille flags look like: http://www.kbti.org/images/americanflag03.jpg

H.R.5140
March 18, 2008 03:03 PM (5 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

When to Expect Your Stimulus Check: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/450-When-to-Expect-Your-Stimulus-Check

S.2544
March 18, 2008 01:03 PM (5 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Hi Anonymous, The Senate was in pro-forma session this morning. During a pro-forma sessions no votes are held and no legislative business is conducted. It is a formality that is used to keep Congress technically in session so that the President cannot legally bypass the Senate confirmation process for appointing government officials.

S.2544
March 15, 2008 01:03 PM (5 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Just FYI, if everyone registers with this site and logs in, you'll all get the ability to rate the comments on this board using a simple sider bar and collectively filter out the ones that you think are inappropriate, inaccurate, etc. Once five people rate a comment lower than "5," it will not be viewable unless you choose to view all comments. Just scroll up to the upper right corner of this page and click on "Join OpenCongress," or copy/paste this url into your browser: http://www.opencongress.org/register