On the road again

Strip Clubs, Kidney Sales, Lottery

Obama delays release of CIA report

Sen.: Sotomayor advised 'extreme' group

S.C. first lady: I’m angry, can forgive him

South Carolina's first lady said Gov. Mark Sanford's actions were "inexcusable" but she was willing to forgive him.

Key Senate Dems trim cost of health care bill

Determined to advance President Barack Obama's health care agenda, key Senate Democrats are calling for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans, as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.

Obama talks Russia, Sotomayor, jobs, Jackson

Before departing for the holiday weekend, President Barack Obama sat down with The Associated Press, talking Russia (Putin "still has a lot of sway"), joblessness (he's "deeply concerned"), and Michael Jackson (he's got the late singer's songs on his iPod).

Biden to meet with Iraq leaders

Vice President Joe Biden arrives in Iraq to visit U.S. troops and meet with Iraqi leaders, including President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

GOP's Coleman may eye Minn. governor run

The man who lost the 1998 Minnesota governor's race to pro wrestler Jesse Ventura now holds the distinction of losing his U.S. Senate seat to former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken.

U.S. halts military relations with Honduras

The Obama administration says it has suspended joint military operations with Honduras to protest a coup that forced President Manuel Zelaya into exile.

Obama pitches health plan, hugs cancer patient

President Barack Obama wanted to put a human face on his plans to overhaul health care, and a Virginia supporter did just that Wednesday.

Which Al Franken will show up in Washington?

Al Franken arrives in Washington next week to claim a seat that stood vacant for half a year — but will he be the passionate, sometimes angry liberal or the cautious, serious politico?

Maloney to take on Gillibrand in primary

Rejecting a plea from Vice President Joe Biden, New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney will challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the state's Democratic primary, setting the stage for a potentially costly and contentious fight.

White House not appealing transgender ruling

Health overhaul means big Medicare changes

Governor 'crossed lines' with more women

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress — but never had sex with them.

Crisis looms as Calif. misses budget deadline

The California Senate has shut down for the night after failing to approve a stopgap plan to stave off the need for IOUs and ease the state's $24.3 billion budget deficit.

Hawaii senator helps bank he founded get aid

Obama gets ally for health care plan: Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart, which was once criticized for less than generous employee benefits, has embraced President Barack Obama's call for requiring all large employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

Campaign funds, civil rights still on agenda

Obama lauds community nonprofits

President Barack Obama on Tuesday promised that the White House will do its part to support grassroots organizations that are successful in their efforts to improve communities.

Analysis: Obama on the Honduran coup

Dealing with the first Latin American crisis of his presidency, Barack Obama sought a swift, clear response that would not be interpreted as U.S. interventionism in a region that loathes it.

Better Budget Numbers for Health Care

Good news for those that support a public health care option. Apparently, when you throw a public option into the health care reform fray, along with a plan to tax large companies that don’t provide health care, the cost of action becomes much less and covers more people.

The Associated Press reports:

Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.

“We must not settle for legislation that merely gestures at reform,” the two Democrats wrote. “We must deliver on the promise of true change.”

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.

The same provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.

For more details on the new version of the “HELP” bill, see Wonk Room and The Treatment. Also, Health Care for America Now says that all 13 Democrats on the HELP committee are set to vote in favor of the new version of the bill.

See all the Last-Minute Changes to the Climate Change Bill

Last week when House Democratic leaders decided at the last minute to add several hundred pages of changes to the Waxman-Markley cap-and-trade bill and rush it to the House floor for a vote, the bill’s opponents and some good-government groups raised serious objections to the opacity of the process. Rich Lowry at the National Review wrote, “no one could be sure what he was voting for — not after the 1,200-page bill had a 300-page amendment added at 3:09 a.m. the day of its passage.” And Paul Blumenthal at the Sunlight Foundation, noting that the 300-page amendment was the product of a many behind-the-scenes meetings on the Hill, asked, “what lobbyists were involved in those meetings?”

We may never get the details of the back-room negotiating that took place leading up to the bill’s passage in the House on Friday, but with OpenCongress’s legislative versioning tool we can see exactly what was changed in the bill in the process and then start to figure out why. Just go to the text of the bill as passed by the House and select “Show Changes.” You can scan the entire bill and see, with color-coded text, exactly what was changed – red, stuck-out text denoting changed or removed sections in the bill, and green text denoting sections that were inserted or modified.

I just spent 30 minutes scanning through the bill and its changes, here are a few things that stood out to me.

Transparency of Carbon Offsets

It appears that during the negotiations, language was added to the bill to bring a little more transparency to the carbon offsets program. There’s a lot of skepticism surrounding the carbon offsets idea, so this is significant. Basically, the program would allow polluters to buy an offset or pay someone else to reduce or capture carbon instead of actually reducing their own carbon emissions. If the offsets program isn’t rigorous enough, carbon levels won’t actually be reduced to meet the bill’s carbon targets.

The changes made to the bill would require the administrator of the program to make offset applications and the administrator’s decision to accept or reject the application publicly available. It’s unclear what “publicly available” means for the purposes of this section, but if it’s done properly – posted online in a searchable format – then the prospect of public accountability could help the administrator make responsible decisions that will keep the program on track to reach the bill’s carbon targets. Here’s how the section of the text appears when the recent changes are highlighted with our versioning tool:

‘(d) Approval and Notification- Not later than 90 days after receiving a complete approval petition under subsection (a), the Administrator shall make the approval petition publicly available,

approve or deny the petition in writing and, if the petition is denied, provide the reasons for denial, and make the Administrator’s written decision publicly available. After an offset project is approved, the offset project developer shall not be required to resubmit an approval petition during the offset project’s crediting period, except as provided in section 734(c )(4).

Weaker International Efforts

Part F of the bill, “Ensuring Real Reductions in Industrial Emissions,” has two stated purposes: “to promote a strong global effort to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and “to prevent an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in countries other than the United States as a result of direct and indirect compliance costs incurred under this title.”

But a change made to the version of the bill passed by the House appears to weaken the section in what seems to me like a significant way. The original version of the bill, as introduced, stated that it was United States policy to work proactively to establish binding agreements “committing all major greenhouse gas-emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.” But the version passed by the House on Friday removes any mention of setting U.S. policy and instead states that the purpose of the section is to to “induce foreign countries, and, in particular, fast-growing developing countries, to take substantial action with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Here’s how the portion of text appears when version changes are displayed:

‘SEC. 762. INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS.‘(a) Finding- Congress finds that the purposes of this part, as set forth in section 761, can be most effectively addressed and achieved through agreements negotiated between the United States and foreign countries.‘(b) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States to work proactively under the United ‘(c ) Purposes of Subpart 2- The purposes of subpart 2 are additionally-

‘(1) to induce foreign countries, and, in particular, fast-growing developing countries, to take substantial action with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the Bali Action Plan developed under the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in other appropriate forums, to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major greenhouse gas-emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.‘(c ) Notification of Foreign Countries- Not later than January 1, 2020, the President shall notify foreign countries that an International Reserve Allowance Program, as described in subpart 2, may apply to primary products produced in a foreign country by a sector for which the President has made a determination described in section 767(c ); and

‘(2) to ensure that the measures described in subpart 2 are designed and implemented in a manner consistent with applicable international agreements to which the United States is a party.

Protecting U.S. Intellectual Property in Clean Tech

A provision from the House’s Foreign Relations Authorization bill protecting U.S. intellectual property rights in global climate change treaties was brought to my attention through a Slashdot posting a few weeks ago. The posting quoted Peter Zura’s patent blog noting that the Foreign Authorization vote had come “in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations in December as part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. … Previously, there was sufficient chatter in international circles on compulsory licenses, IP seizures, and the outright abolition of patents on low-carbon technology, that Congress felt it necessary to clarify the US’s IP position up front.’”

Not surprisingly, a scan through the revised climate change bill as passed by the House shows that similar text was added to it in several spots, particularly in the “”http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:7104">Exporting Clean Energy" subtitle. Language putting intellectual property considerations at the forefront of clean tech implementation in developing countries was dropped in at the last minute in several sections of the subtitle. Here’s one example:

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this subtitle are-

(1) to provide United States assistance and leverage private resources to encourage widespread implementation, in developing countries, of activities that reduce, sequester, or avoid greenhouse gas emissions; and

(2) to provide such assistance in a manner that-

(A) encourages such countries to adopt policies and measures, including sector-based and cross-sector policies and measures, that substantially reduce, sequester, or avoid greenhouse gas emissions;

and(B)(B)

promotes the successful negotiation of a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and

(C ) promotes robust compliance with and enforcement of existing international legal requirements for the protection of intellectual property rights, as formulated in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)) and in applicable intellectual property provisions of bilateral trade agreements.

These findings are from a quick scan of the bill and they don’t include the most substantial changes to the bill that have been reported already. With more time, I’m sure there is a lot more that can be discovered. I encourage everyone to take a few minutes to scan through the text and see if anything strikes them as particularly interesting and worth more investigation.

To see the last-minute changes that were made to the bill before it was brought to the House floor go here and click the “Show Changes” link. Scroll down until you find some text in red or green; that’s where changes were made. If you scroll over the text, the option to leave a comment or create a permalink will appear. If you find anything, please mark it by leaving a comment and post the permalink in the comments of this post so the rest of us can check it out. Happy digging!

DoD Supercops

We’re seeing a little surge of interest on OpenCongress in a relatively unnoticed piece of pending legislation, H.R. 675. It doesn’t have a short/informal title, but the official summary explains it’s a bill “To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”

All the recent interest in the bill seems to be coming from this post on Infowars:

H.R. 675: Building Obama’s Civilian National Security Force

In January, without any recognizable corporate media coverage, Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, introduced H.R. 675. The bill would amend title 10 of the United States Code and extend to civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee on January 26, 2009.

Filner’s bill would amend the United States code with the following: “Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms… for any offense against the United States.” (Emphasis added.)

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed on June 18, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property within the United States.

H.R. 675 sidesteps Posse Comitatus by defining “law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense” as “a civilian employee of the Department of Defense,” including federal police officers, detectives, criminal investigators, special agents, and game law enforcement officers classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 0083 (the United States Office of Personnel Management is described as an “independent agency” of the U.S. government that manages the civil service of the federal government).

The bill hasn’t attracted a single co-sponsor and it hasn’t seen any action in the legislative process.

Cap-and-Trade and Campaign Finance

The Center for Responsive Politics, the people behind the money-in-politics site OpenSecrets, have done an analysis of the House’s vote last Friday passing the Waxman-Markley climate change bill. Based on campaign contribution data going back 20 years, here’s what they found:

Across the board, the industries that have opposed climate change legislation have given more money to the members of the House of Representatives who voted against the sweeping bill than to those who helped pass it. The energy sector overall, for example, gave twice the amount of contributions, on average, to those who voted against the legislation than to those who supported it ($274,000 compared to $124,200).

Their report points out that environmental groups, over the same period, gave only $21,198 to members of Congress that voted in favor of the bill, and only $3,088 to those that voted against it. So, both the energy companies and the environmentalists gave much more to the members that ended up voting their way. But, even though the environmental groups gave less than 20 percent of what the energy companies gave, their position ended up winning out.

Preview of OpenCongress Redesign

Today, at the Personal Democracy Forum conference, OpenCongress is announcing our biggest update yet, coming this summer: a complete site re-design, more data on “the money trail” in Congress, and new tools to engage with your elected officials. Everyone can be an insider.

Currently, OpenCongress works as a hub of conversation about bills and issues in Congress, but the upcoming redesign will make the site a more powerful organizing platform. If OpenCongress were a software project, we’d call it version 2.0, and we’re excited to get it out into the world.

Here are some screenshot previews of the redesign, along with quick ways for you to give your feedback and help spread the word. First, to the right, check out the new OC homepage in progress — click the image once to see it in full in a new browser window and again to enlarge:

… so fresh & so clean, the redesign improves the readability & usability of all the government data & social wisdom on our pages. We’re continually working toward the point where, instead of feeling overwhelmed or intimidated by government data, newcomers to politics feel more informed and empowered in the face of the legislative process.

Congress w/ Social Context

Second, our bill page interface has been redesigned with one of the primary aims being to foreground the interactive tools:

… the new right-hand sidebar presents easy access to tracking and voting features, built-in social sharing, and now, as below, the ability to write your elected officials directly from bill pages with your opinion on the bill:

… scrolling down back on this draft bill page, we’ve brought out and highlighted the social data on “Users Tracking This Bill” — what other bills and Members people are tracking, supporting, and opposing. This data, uniquely generated by the OpenCongress community, works like a “Six Degrees of OpenCongress” — find other topics of likely interest to you in the Congressional haystack, based on the associations of real people.

Watchdog Congress

Third, we’re especially excited to announce a new set of “Watchdog” features called as part of every free “My OpenCongress” profile:

… on your “Watchdog” tab, you can easily view your Senators’ and Representative’s latest actions, and compare your personal votes “aye/nay” on bills with their official votes on those bills’ passage. Watchdog tabs are accompanied by state- and Congressional district-specific portals to find your elected officials and what other users in your state are tracking, supporting, and opposing. These are significant steps towards our goal of taking OpenCongress more local and facilitating peer-to-peer constituent communication about the votes that matter to you.

More $$ Data

Fourth, we’re integrating more campaign contribution data to help the public follow “The Money Trail” throughout Congress. For Members of Congress, the redesigned site will show new levels of detail from OpenSecrets on which industries have donated to their campaigns. For bills, we’re now syndicating more info from MAPLight on interests that support and oppose the bill (e.g., the recent Climate Change Bill [H.R. 2454]). These are significant additions in making OpenCongress a more useful tool for combating corruption and building broad-based accountability.

Fifth, as part of the redesign launch we’ll be releasing the OpenCongress API, currently in beta. In short, the API provides web developers with automated access to all the data on OpenCongress in order to remix it for their own websites & online communities. In addition to official legislative data, the API offers a wealth of one-of-a-kind social data: bills most in the news & blogs, what’s popular in the Battle Royale, users tracking this bill are also tracking these bills, summaries of hot bills, and much more.

Wiki Knowledge

Sixth and last, the redesign will feature enhanced access to the shockingly useful content available on the OpenCongress Wiki — especially RaceTracker, the community project tracking every election for the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and governorship. This crowd-sourced project allows individuals to add information they know about who’s running for office in their district and state, as long as the info is referenced to an outside source. The result is a collaborative, non-partisan, rich web resource on everyone running for Congress in 2010 and beyond. The OC Wiki will also release a new project giving enhanced access to Congressional scorecards from issue-based organizations from a variety of backgrounds. On pages for Members of Congress, you’ll have over 30 scorecards at your fingertips with meaningful votes on important issues, as well as the ability to access all this structured data through semantic MediaWiki. For example, visit the wiki profile of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) & do a ‘find’ on “Congressional scorecards”.

Help Us Out!

Overall, by making our site more social and interactive, we’re working to make Congress more transparent and accountable. We’re interested in your feedback – to volunteer as a beta-tester and how the new features work for you, simply email us at w/ subject line “redesign”. In the weeks to come we’ll email you a preview link with further instructions on how to help. In the meantime, please help spread the word about our upcoming redesign — short link to Tweet, Digg post to Digg, or simply email this blog post to your friends. As always, OpenCongress is a 100% free, open-source, non-partisan, and not-for-profit joint project of Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation. Can’t wait to see how individuals and organizations use the new site to get involved in the Congressional process. Thanks for using OpenCongress.