Main Street Insider

This Week in Congress: looking to wrap up & get out of town

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:01 GMT

Recapping Last Week in Congress

Last week in the House was almost all about the Republican freak-out over regulations, both real and imagined. First, the BANANAS-worthy Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. Then, the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act," which might as well have been the Unicorn Prevention Act.

The Senate's week was also about Republican freak-outs, but in the Senate, Republicans are in the minority, so a freak-out takes the form of a filibuster. And last week saw several: Caitlin Halligan's nomination for the DC Circuit bench; Richard Cordray's nomination to head the CFPB, and; the various alternatives on the payroll tax cut extension.

This Week in Congress

This could be the last week of the first session, and the House kicks its week off with... a slate full of post office, federal building and even park naming bills. Eighteen suspension bills in total are scheduled for the floor this week (not all naming bills, though), as Members scramble to get their non-controversial housekeeping done before the break. Other than the suspensions, the only business that actually appears on the schedule is consideration of a House Republican version of the payroll tax cut extension, and the conference reports on the MilCon appropriations bill and the defense authorization bill. We know, however, that there are still a number of unfinished appropriations bills, the latest temporary extensions of which are scheduled to expire at the end of the week. So we'll either see them bring another omnibus bill to wrap that up, or I suppose they could possibly tuck it into the conference report on MilCon, if they can get an agreement on that.

The Senate stares down the barrel of another couple of filibusters, starting with two on ambassadorial nominations. And one of these in particular really appears to break new ground in audacity, that being the filibuster of Mari Carmen Aponte's nomination as Ambassador to El Salvador, because as the NYT's Gail Collins puts it, Republicans "don’t like a boyfriend she lived with almost 20 years ago."

The rest of the Senate schedule is a catch-all notice that Senators should expect votes on the conference reports (defense authorization and MilCon approps), plus more votes on the payroll tax cut extension.

What that tells us is that both the House and Senate will likely combine a few of the last pending measures together, and tack a few bonus items on to any vehicle that moves, with both parties in both houses likely trying to cram as many of their preferred fixes to the various expiring measures (the Medicare "doc fix," unemployment insurance, etc.) into those bills as they think they can get away with. In addition, the Senate will need to hold its vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment (thanks to the one remaining effective provision of this summer's debt ceiling deal). Some week!

Full floor and committee schedules are below the fold.

Season 2 Finale: The OCCUPIED Amendment

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:00 GMT

When we started our second season back in January, all eyes were on the plans of new Republican House majority. With that in mind, our first episode was on an extremely insider issue: transparency provisions in the House rules package. As the year has progressed, however, disillusioned activists across the political spectrum began to seek larger, systemic reforms to a broken political system. In homage to an evolving political climate, we wrap up the season with perhaps our most “outsider” summary to date: the OCCUPIED constitutional amendment by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL19).

Deutch was inspired to act by the grievances at the heart of the Occupy Wall Street sensation – frustration with a political system corrupted by money and designed to advance the interests of large corporations and the super-rich. The amendment is the most far-reaching attempt to undo the corrosive effects of money in politics by getting at the roots. While we recently covered another proposed amendment by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD4) that would simply overturn Citizens United, this amendment also negates corporate personhood and essentially gives Congress and state legislatures the authority to enact whatever campaign finance reform measures they deem necessary.

While this proposal has virtually no chance of even receiving a hearing in the Republican-controlled House, it is a clarifying rhetorical measure as the most logical legislative answer to the demands of the Occupiers, stated or otherwise.

See below the fold for the one-pager and further links.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 30
H. J. Res. 90: Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment
Introduced 11/18/2011
Sponsor: Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL19)
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Cosponsors: 3 (3 Democrats, 0 Republicans). Full list at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HJ00090:@@@P

Status: Referred to Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Almost certain to die without a hearing.
Senate Companion: No direct counterpart.

Purpose: The now-infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision unleashed a torrent of corporate spending in the 2010 election cycle, heavily tilted towards Republicans and much of it anonymous. In response, Democrats have proposed various measures to counteract the antidemocratic effects of unlimited and undisclosed corporate spending.

While leadership chose to advance a more modest response and demand transparency through the DISCLOSE Act, some favored a constitutional amendment to repeal the decision entirely. Rep. Donna Edwards' proposal, H.J. Res. 78, overturns the decision but does not proscribe the corporate personhood doctrine that undergirds Citizens United. This amendment offers a more aggressive approach, aiming to create the conditions for sweeping campaign finance reform. The name is, naturally, an homage to the burgeoning Occupy movement.

Summary: The OCCUPIED Act (unofficial name) contains four clauses. They are as follows:

1) Overturns Corporate Personhood – states that constitutional protections apply only to human beings and not to corporations or other business entities of any sort. This clause would force the judiciary to revisit a controversial constitutional interpretation that has stood in some form for over a century.

2) Reaffirms Constitutionality of Government Regulations – makes clear that corporations are established by the law and are thus subject to local and federal regulations.

3) Overturns Citizens United – prohibits corporations from spending money to influence any election or ballot measure.

4) Overturns Buckley v. Valeo – reaffirms the right of Congress and the states to regulate all campaign expenditures, including those by individuals and candidates themselves.

Note: As with any constitutional amendment, this proposal requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress (290 in the House, 67 in the Senate), and ratification by 3/4 of the states (38) in order to be enacted. With Republicans controlling far more than the 13 states necessary to block an amendment, enactment is virtually impossible barring a massive shift in the political climate.

CBO Score: None provided. Would not affect federal or state spending in itself, although it may open the door for future regulations requiring enforcement.

Supporters: most Democrats and allied organizations, good government organizations

• Supporters feel this measure is necessary to prevent corporate-aligned interests from buying elections outright and thus undermining the fabric of democracy. They also believe the idea that protections for corporate political activity grotesquely distort the Founders' intent as expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Opponents: Republicans and allied organizations

• Opponents of this measure (and therefore supporters of the Citizens United decision) claim corporate spending on elections is protected by the First Amendment, as intended by the Founding Fathers. They see efforts to remove that protection as restricting freedom.

Further links
Full legislative text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.90:
Rep. Deutch press release with summary: http://deutch.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269672
Main Street Insider's summary of the Donna Edwards amendment: http://www.mainstreetinsider.org/90secondsummaries/?p=520
Heritage Foundation blog post opposing the amendment: http://bit.ly/rrPFQl
Washington Post interview with Rep. Deutch: http://wapo.st/tMGcBe

This Week in Congress: House Republicans look to adjourn, after one last regulatory freak-out

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:55 GMT

Recapping Last Week in Congress

A typical week in the House last week, with one union-bashing bill, two regulatory panic bills, and one bill killing off federal elections assistance programs and federal funding for presidential races and party conventions. That last bit is interesting, especially in light of speculation that Herman Cain "suspended" rather than ended his presidential bid in an effort to remain eligible to collect federal matching funds. It'd be awfully ironic to see Mr. Bootstraps holding on for a federal bailout, especially in light of the fact that every Republican in the House (save one, Walter Jones of NC) voted to kill that funding off just last week.

The Senate spent Monday through Thursday evening finishing the controversial defense authorization bill (currently under veto threat over the detainee policy provisions), then quickly turned to rejecting motions to proceed to both the Democratic and Republican alternatives on the payroll tax holiday extension.

This Week in Congress

The House calendar currently lists Thursday as its target adjournment date for the first session, though it's not entirely clear that they're really going to be able to wind things up this week without some additional appropriations work that isn't specifically enumerated on the schedule at this point. As of now, there's a lot of end-of-session housekeeping. Eighteen suspension bills, and two Republican regulatory panic bills, one of which has been languishing in committee since January, and has apparently only emerged now at the very end of the session, because Republicans are so super serious about stuff. Seriously. It can reliably be said, I think, that voting for the first time on H.R. 10 in the last week of the session is a sign of some pretty scatterbrained disorganization. And if that's not enough for you, how about genuine paranoid idiocy? The second regulatory panic bill seeks to ban a non-existent EPA rule on "farm dust."

That's where your United States House of Representatives is, folks.

The Senate, as usual, does not have nearly as much detail set in stone about its schedule. So far, they've got an agreement in place for votes on four federal district court judges. There's a fifth judicial nomination pending, but Republicans are apparently still standing in the way of that one, and cloture had to be filed, on which a vote is expected on Tuesday.

There's no clear target adjournment date yet on the Senate side, but again, it's likely there will have to be some additional appropriations work done before anyone can go home, since the last continuing appropriations bill (passed in mid-November) funded some agencies only through December 16th. And of course, the promise on the payroll tax holiday extension was that the Senate would keep trying over and over again to get that to the floor until... something. So... stay tuned!

Full floor and committee schedules are below the fold.

Today in Congress: Senate defense bill, detainee policy fight continues

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:08 GMT

Recapping yesterday's action:

The House was not in session yesterday.

The Senate debated a few of the pending amendments to the defense authorization bill, confirmed Christopher Droney to the 2nd Circuit bench, began the Rule XIV process to bring the payroll tax cut extension bill to the floor, and filed for cloture on the defense bill.

Looking ahead to today:

The House gets its traditional late start on a nothingburger of a day, coming back on a Tuesday afternoon and delaying votes until 6:30 p.m. on a series of four suspension bills.

The Senate will continue its consideration of the defense bill and the pending amendments, letting the clock run on ripening the cloture motion filed today, which could bring us to a vote as early as Wednesday morning, but then (if successful) up to 30 more hours of debate after that. The tax cut extension bill won't be ready for Rule XIV consideration until Wednesday, but if they hope to get to that soon, they'll have to bring it up either before voting on cloture, or only if cloture on the defense bill fails, because if that cloture motion succeeds, then the defense bill remains the pending business until it's completed, and that backs the tax bill up into late Thursday or even Friday. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Today's floor and committee schedules appear below the fold.

The “Doomsday Scenario”

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:35 GMT

When the President and Congress failed to reach a budget deal several months ago, they created a “supercommittee” to get the job done. Hanging over that supercommittee's head was what some had termed the “doomsday scenario,” a series of automatic spending cuts that would be triggered upon failure to produce a deal by November 23rd. Since leaders from both parties on that committee have announced failure, these cuts are now scheduled to go into effect in 2013.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 29
The Budget Control Act: Automatic Spending Cuts
Enacted 8/2/2011
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Status: Due to failure of the Supercommittee to produce a proposal, automatic cuts are slated to be implemented in 2013. Currently unclear whether Congress will act beforehand to prevent or modify these cuts, although both President Obama and leadership of both parties is supporting their implementation.

Purpose: Upon taking control of the House in 2010, Republicans threatened to prevent an increase the national debt ceiling unless deep spending cuts were enacted. As a deadline for default on federal debts approached, Congress and President Obama agreed to a comprehensive deal that included a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion and steps to achieve at least that amount in deficit reduction over 10 years.

In addition to $917 billion of immediately effective spending cuts*, a special “Supercommittee” was created to recommend at least $1.2 trillion in further deficit reduction measures. But just in case the Supercommittee failed to reach agreement on a deal, $1.2 trillion in automatic across-the-board cuts were included as a backup plan. With Supercommittee leaders announcing a failure to meet the panel's November 23rd deadline, the automatic cuts are now scheduled to go into effect at the start of 2013.

Summary: The across-the-board cuts are drawn equally from defense and nondefense spending. The sequestrations of $984 billion ($109 billion per year) break down in the following manner:

• $55 billion per year (10.0% of total in 2013) from defense discretionary spending limits.
• $39 billion (7.8%) in 2013 from nondefense discretionary spending limits, declining to $33 billion (5.5%) by 2021.
• 2% per year ($10.8 billion) from Medicare, increasing to $17.2 billion by 2021.
• Roughly $5 billion per year from other mandatory programs.
• Exempts Social Security, Medicaid, federal retirement and disability programs, various income assistance programs, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the cuts.

Note: The Budget Control Act specifies that $216 billion is deducted off the top to account for savings in net interest generated by the cuts. However, CBO estimates that figure will come to just $169 billion.

CBO Score: The cuts would result in total 10-year deficit reduction of $1.057 trillion, less than the targeted amount. See the full analysis: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12414/09-12-BudgetControlAct.pdf
* All dollar estimates via the Congressional Budget Office

Given that the automatic cuts were designed to provide incentive for the Supercommittee to reach a deal, their dislike is nearly universal. However, reasons for such disapproval break down into three basic categories:

1) Many members from both parties strongly oppose the across-the-board cuts to defense spending, and suggest they will harm national security. Republican members of Congress are nearly unanimous in this stance.
2) Centrist austerity advocates such as Third Way believe the automatic cuts, while generally better than nothing, are deeply inadequate. They still champion a “grand bargain” that includes both new revenues and entitlement cuts.
3) Most progressives believe the focus on deficits is misguided at best, and dangerously counterproductive at worst. They believes Congress should be focusing on job creation and not cut the budget until the economy improves.

Further links
Full Budget Control Act text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-365
Official CRS summary of the Budget Control Act: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-365&tab=summary
Supercommitee announcement of inability to reach a deal: http://bit.ly/v5DJQf
Third Way on the Supercommittee's failure: http://www.thirdway.org/publications/454
CBPP breakdown of the cuts: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3557
NYTimes on the fate of the military cuts: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/automatic-military-cuts-may-stand-in-congress.html

This Week in Congress: redlining the B.S. meter

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:10 GMT

Recapping Last Week in Congress

My favorite kind of week to recap: Congress was in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday last week. But just as a reminder, when our heroes last left us, they had debated a doomed "Balanced Budget Amendment," a federalization of concealed carry gun permitting, and quietly passed another continuing appropriations measure. This latest one funds much of the government (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services', Food and Drug Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Transportation; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and other small agencies) through the end of the fiscal year, though some departments remain on only a short-term lifeline, through December 16th.

This Week in Congress

This week in the House will set off your B.S. meter for sure. Here's what's pending (besides the customary suspension bills to begin the week):the "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act," the "Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act," and the "Regulatory Accountability Act." And yet, I'm not expecting much in the way of Democracy, Fairness, Flexibility Improvements or Accountability. Just to mix things up a bit, the House will also consider a bill to terminate taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and the Election Assistance Commission.

The Senate schedule begins with a resumption of consideration of the defense authorization bill, with just a quick detour for the consideration of one more judicial nomination. The defense bill is quickly shaping up to be a major battle, though. Look for the biggest confrontations to be over detainee policy, an area in which Congress has recently discovered it may actually have an interest, versus the "unitary executive" and "commander in chief" model that prevailed until... well, until about the time the commander in chief job changed hands. Still, the fact that Congress should be taking a greater interest here doesn't necessarily mean they'll do a particularly good job of it. In fact, Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) doesn't think it they have, and his amendment to strike the relevant provisions of the bill likely be one of the biggest fights this week. With a long (and growing) list of amendments pending, the defense bill could consume the entire week, if not more. But we should also note that there are indications that the Senate could shift its attention to the extension of the payroll tax cut, or at least try to. We'll have to wait and see how much dust Republicans are interested in kicking up on that subject.

Today in Congress: BBA vote from debt ceiling deal goes forward, even as Super Committee fails

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:19 GMT

Recapping yesterday's action:

The House moved quickly to agree to the conference report on H.R. 2112, the bill the Senate turned into the first "minibus" last week, and which became the new continuing appropriations bill in conference. Then it launched into the first half of a five-hour debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment, before adjourning for the evening.

The Senate also made time for agreeing to the continuing appropriations bill once it was received from the House, fitting it in between periods of ongoing debate and consideration of amendments on the Defense authorization bill. By the way, take a look at the list of pending amendments to the bill. What a fun place the Senate is, eh?

Just for the record, let me note that during today's proceedings, Senator Barrasso (R-WY) put a hold on the nomination of Kenneth J. Kopocis, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Barrasso may or may not insist, if asked, that he was objecting on someone else's behalf. But if unanimous consent is asked and you object, you own the hold. The end. Just wanted to put that out there.

Looking ahead to today:

The House will begin with consideration of a rule for their latest labor union-bashing bill, the "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act." How much you wanna bet there ain't much democracy or fairness in it? We'll find out next week, since it looks like they'll be postponing debate on the actual bill until then.

After the rule is dispensed with, they'll finish up the second half of the five hours of debate and then a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment, apparently in an effort to erase the "workforce" part of the "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act" that already has no democracy or fairness in it.

The Senate continues its consideration of the defense bill today, but no roll call votes are scheduled, so most Senators likely left town last night and won't be around for debate.

Today's floor and committee schedules appear below the fold.

Today in Congress: a gun bill with a gag order for local cops

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:57 GMT

Recapping yesterday's action:

The House passed the rule for consideration of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, and completed consideration of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard authorization bill, including the Republican rejection of the motion to recommit that would have prohibited awarding contracts to anyone convicted of fraud. Yay! Go fraud!

The Senate continued debate on the second "minibus" appropriations bill, and approved the nominations of two federal judges, Sharon Gleason, to the District of Alaska and Yvonne Rogers, to the District of Northern California.

The day also included the typical allotment of unanimous consent motions, including one adopting S.Res.323, recognizing the 75th Anniversary of the Welfare Program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What an interesting idea! Welfare! This is good news for John McRomney.

Looking ahead to today:

The bulk of the day in the House will be spent on the gun free-for-all bill. Now, I know there are plenty of good progressives who believe strongly in gun rights. I just find it a little weird that people think they should be able to carry some random state's laws around with them in their pockets (along with the gun) wherever they go. If you leave the jurisdiction, you leave the jurisdiction. That's no surprise to anyone. That's been reality for 200+ years. Plus, lots of states require that permit applicants be adjudged "of good character" by local police. But under this law (and some already-existing state-by-state reciprocity laws), you can bypass your local cops by obtaining an out-of-state permit from a jurisdiction that knows nothing about you. They ought to call it the National Gag Order for Local Cops Act. But, hey, no one listens to me.

Anyway, as I said, the bulk of the day will be spent on the gun bill and its ten approved amendments. But that bill's consideration will be bookended by a motion to suspend the rules and adopt the Senate version of H.R. 674, the 3% withholding repeal, and by those leftover, postponed votes on Monday's suspension bills.

The Senate will continue its debate of "minibus II," mostly, I think, as a holding pattern while it awaits delivery of the continuing appropriations bill from the House later in the week.

Today's floor and committee schedules appear below the fold.

ALEC Exposed: Voter ID

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:58 GMT

This week, we take a look at another in a series of model legislation written by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Voter ID Act. Make no mistake about it, this legislation was written to hack away at a very specific segment of the voting public. ALEC and its allies invoked the specter of voter fraud, a wholly manufactured crisis, to justify a series of measures designed to erect barriers to voting among Democratic-leaning demographic groups.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 28
Spotlight on the States: The Voter ID Act
ALEC model legislation – adopted July 17, 2009
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Status: Versions introduced in at least 33 states. As of 11/10/11, 14 states have photo ID requirements in place.

Purpose: The 2008 electorate that launched Barack Obama to the White House was more than just the highest election turnout in more than 60 years. It represented the emergence of a new Democratic coalition, one comprised primarily of racial and ethnic minorities, low-income Americans, liberals, young voters and women. At the time, forecasts of demographic change and shifting views on social issues led to speculation that Republicans were on the verge of becoming a permanent minority party.

Shortly after President Obama's election, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) began to prioritize efforts to chip away at the influence of this coalition. featuring a cover story entitled “Preventing Election Fraud” in its widely-read newsletter. ALEC and its allies invoked the specter of voter fraud to justify a series of measures designed to erect barriers to voting among Democratic-leaning demographic groups. The Voter ID Act, adopted by ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force in summer 2009, is the most prominent of those measures.

Summary: The Voter ID Act requires voters to present a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Specifically, it:

• Defines “proof of identity” as a federal or state-issued photo ID that has an expiration date but is not yet expired;
• Requires that prospective voters present proof of identity at the polls;
• Allows those without a valid ID to fill out provisional ballots and lays out guidelines for the consideration of such provisional ballots;

◦ Provisional ballots are counted if the voter provides ID to the county by the Monday following the election;
◦ Otherwise, county election commissioners evaluate each provisional ballot “based on the merits”;

• Establishes that ID cards shall be provided free of charge to eligible voters without a valid driver's license;
• Exempts nursing home and assisted-living facility residents from the requirements.

If enacted in all 50 states, this model legislation would have the effect of making the voting process more cumbersome for the up to 5 million American citizens, particularly minorities and college students, who currently lack proof of citizenship or residency.

Supporters: American Legislative Exchange Council, most Republicans, etc.

• Supporters claim this measure is necessary to counteract rampant voter fraud, primarily carried out by the Democratic machine. However, details such as the exclusion of expired licenses and the persistent lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud suggest that their support is more driven by partisan concerns.

Opponents: Civic engagement organizations, minority rights organizations, most Democrats, etc.

• Opponents view this measure as an assault on the democratic process, a thinly veiled attempt to depress turnout among the Democratic base by restricting voter access among groups that lean heavily Democratic. They believe it may also violate the various constitutional protections for equal voting rights.

Further links
Model legislation text: http://alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d9/7G16-VOTER_ID_ACT_Exposed.pdf
The Nation article on ALEC election-related legislation: http://www.thenation.com/article/161969/rigging-elections
PRWatch on a legal challenge to the Wisconsin version: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/11086/wisconsin-voter-id-law-challenged-league-women-voters
NCSL interactive map and description of state voter ID laws and pending bills: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602
RedState defense of Rhode Island voter ID bill: http://www.redstate.com/soren_dayton/2011/10/10/rhode-island-and-voter-id/
Brennan Center demographic analysis of affected Wisconsinites: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_50902.pdf

This Week in Congress: another week, another potential government shutdown

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:29 GMT

Recapping Last Week in Congress

The House was in recess last week. The Senate was in session, however, and succeeded in invoking cloture on a motion to proceed to, amending, and then passing H.R. 674, repealing the never-implemented 3% withholding policy for government contractors. Other major items of business included the rejection of motions to proceed on resolutions of disapproval regarding EPA cross-border pollution rules, and FCC net neutrality regulations. And just before breaking for the weekend, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed a second "minibus" appropriations bill (Energy & Water, Financial Services, and Foreign Operations). That's a lot of votes on motions to proceed for a Senate that supposedly has an agreement in place not to filibuster so many motions to proceed, wouldn't you say?

This Week in Congress

Everybody's back in town this week, and not a moment too soon, since the current continuing appropriations bill that's funding government operations expires this Friday. And that means, at least technically, that we're staring down the barrel of a government shutdown yet again. We'll have to see whether the threat develops into anything serious, or dissolves as the week progresses.

The House is scheduled to take up a continuing appropriations bill this week, but not before first renaming seven post offices, a federal courthouse and a wildlife refuge; voting on H.R. 674 as amended last week by the Senate; completing the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act, and; undermining the entire premise of state sovereignty on gun laws (even though Republicans have traditionally relied on "states' rights" to duck so many other tough issues) in the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. Then, after all that and the continuing approps bill, they'll vote on a balanced budget amendment. It's like they can't stand dealing with real work, without diluting it with fantasy.

The Senate schedule so far reflects only the start of debate on the second "minibus" appropriations bill, and upcoming votes on two more federal judges. But they'll really be waiting for the House to send them the next continuing approps bill, the vehicle for which will be H.R. 2112. You'll remember that as the one that became the first of the "minibus" bills two weeks ago, when the Senate attached the Commerce, Justice, and Science; and Transportation/HUD bills to the Ag bill. Spotting the oncoming freight train of another shutdown deadline, the House-Senate conference added continuing appropriations language to the bill before sending it back out to for floor action this week. Hopefully, the fact that this bill has successfully emerged from conference is an indication that it can pass without major difficulty. But in case you were wondering, yes, you can filibuster a conference report.

Full floor and committee schedules are below the fold.