Homeland Security Digital Library

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 days away, many in the United States are reflecting on the many changes that have occurred since then. We have become more conscious of the intersection between homeland security and larger global issues. One place to look for information on these topics is the Homeland Security Digital Library. Since the University Libraries is a federal depository library, the university community has access to over 92,000 documents that the site has compiled from a wide variety of national and international sources. These include documents outlining the national strategy for defense of the homeland as well as other materials. Recently added document include Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism from the Pew Research Center and Oslo Terrorist Attacks: Analysis, Lessons Learned and Consequences from the Fondation Pour La Recherche Strategique in France.

With material from a wide variety of sources the site is a good place to start research into security-related topics. Links are available on the Government Information's Homeland Security page and from the Find Articles and More page of Chinook.

State of the Union

I am sure all of you listened to/watched the State of the Union last night, but just in case you missed it, here are some resources to check out:

• State of the Union This is the official White House page on the State of the Union address. You can watch the video and read the transcript here. In addition, there are additional ways to continue the discussion through social media, online web meetings and much more.
• Republican Address to the Nation As is tradition, the party the President does not belong to gives an address after the State of the Union. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin gave this address and you can view it and/or read his address on his web site.
• Washington Post State of the Union Want to read what the hometown DC paper is saying about the address? Here you will get articles analyzing the addresses in depth.

Still want more? Then check out the library's guide to the presidency.

Internet Privacy and the 'Do Not Track' Proposal: The FTC is Open to Comments

Last Tuesday morning, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection opened hearings on Internet privacy for consumers in a session entitled Do-Not-Track Legislation: Is Now the Right Time?

Dealing with how companies collect, compile and sell information about visitors to their commercial Web sites, the outcome of this discussion has the potential to create radical changes in consumer protection online, and a fundamental shift in the practices of almost every company that conducts business online.

The hearings may sound like something straight off the desk of Senator John McCain, but actually center around a plan by the Federal Trade Commission to allow consumers to opt out of having their personal information and Internet browsing habits be collected by commercial sites. Indeed, the plan goes one step further in protecting consumer rights by prohibiting any such tracking of Internet behaviors except where permission has been explicitly provided by consumers. In other words, individuals would have to opt in before their information could be tracked, stored, or sold, which is nearly an about face from current Internet business practices that rarely broadcast when profiles are created for visitors, or when -- and to whom -- those profiles are sold.

Similar in title to the widely popular Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003, which gave the Federal Trade Commission powers to enforce the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the Do-Not-Track proposal also shares a significant framework with that Law. Both are structured around a year 2000 document from the FTC called Fair Information Practice (FIP) Principles.

Similarities between the proposed Do-Not-Track plan and the Do-Not-Call Registry are very intentional. No word on whether either apply within a women's correctional facility.

Foremost among the FIP principles are notice and awareness, with the following items "recognized as essential to ensuring that consumers are properly informed before divulging personal information":

Identification of the entity collecting the data;
Identification of the uses to which the data will be put;
Identification of any potential recipients of the data;
The nature of the data collected and the means by which it is collected if not obvious (passively, by means of electronic monitoring, or actively, by asking the consumer to provide the information);
Whether the provision of the requested data is voluntary or required, and the consequences of a refusal to provide the requested information; and
The steps taken by the data collector to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and quality of the data.

One key difference that the FTC recommends, however, is that while the Do-Not-Call Registry requires a unique identifier for each opt out (i.e., a specific telephone number to be added to the block list), Do-Not-Track legislation should NOT require a unique identifier -- because that would effectively identify individuals who have asked specifically NOT to be uniquely identified. Instead, the FTC proposed in their testimony that the most effective opt out would "likely involve placing a setting similar to a persistent cookie on a consumer’s browser, and conveying that setting to sites that the browser visits, to signal whether or not the consumer wants to be tracked or receive targeted advertisements."

Questions remain on how current browser privacy options do or do not comply with the FTC's stated goals, and whether a browser setting provides enough of desired protections. The plan is an interesting beginning, however, to a needed conversation on expectations of Internet privacy and the realities of online commerce.

The FTC's full report is available as a PDF: Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change. You can also watch a streaming video of the hearing or download that video by following the links at the bottom of this FTC page.

Click the image to see a PDF copy of the FTC's proposed Internet Privacy plan.

The FTC is also accepting Public Commentary on its plan for Internet Privacy. Public comments will be accepted until January 31, 2011. To file a public comment electronically, please click here and follow the instructions.

The FDA Bares Its (Yellow) Teeth on Tobacco

Tomorrow, November 18, is the 35th annual Great American Smokeout, a day when health-related organizations across the country encourage those who indulge in cigarettes to ignore the habit and live a day as a non-smoker.


According to a short history from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Smokeout began in 1972 in Randolph, Massachusetts, when a high-school guidance counselor challenged locals to donate their day's cigarette money to a scholarship fund.

The CDC's Web site also provides multiple online publications dedicated to information about the effects of Smoking and Tobacco use. These reports include information on women and tobacco specifically, recent Federal legislation and policies on tobacco use, and extensive amounts of data, such as this page of highlights on Colorado and the Surgeon General's reports on smoking and tobacco use from the past decade.

A recent addition to the national conversation on smoking comes from President Barack Obama, himself a smoker, who last summer signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. One of the main pieces of the Act -- which at 161 pages comes in fairly short for legislation -- was to transfer regulative authority over tobacco to the Food and Drug Administration, and give the FDA discretion over the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. The President, who has been badgered by both the press and his own family about smoking, discussed the risks and costs of smoking, and his own habit, at the signing of the Act on June 22, 2009.



Whether or not President Obama still smokes, the FDA has taken its new charge seriously, and this past Friday unveiled a set of proposed imagery to be added to packages of cigarettes as more visually intrusive warning labels. Some of those labels have been reproduced below.







Will these labels be effective in discouraging tobacco use? Do the messages speak well to their intended audience? The longterm answers of the campiagn are unknown, but the evidence of smoking's -- and secondhand smoke's -- effect on individual health is irrefutable. Unless, of course, you work for a tobacco company. We do hope, however, that if you choose to smoke, you will choose not to smoke tomorrow.

FULL DISCLOSURE: The author of this post is himself a former smoker, and now a frequent runner. His secret to quitting was to take more naps and to eat a lot of carrots. Good luck!

New Documents of Note for Nov. 15: Microfinance, New Orleans, and HIV Prevention

Here are interesting and timely selections recently received at the CU Boulder Libraries. This week's items are all Congressional Hearings, which provide an excellent level of detail on their subjects, as well as input and testimony from recognized experts in their areas. Hearings are available in print, as well as electronically from a variety of sources such as FDsys (linked here) or via LexisNexis Congressional.

Promoting Small and Micro Enterprise in Haiti
A fascinating topic of sustained interest for Economists, especially as the subject garnered a Nobel Peace Prize for India’s Muhammad Yunus in 2006.

Post-Katrina Recovery: Restoring Health Care in the New Orleans Region
Here combined are two topics that may very well define the legacies of our most recent Presidents – access to health care, and the destruction and recovery of the city of New Orleans.

The Domestic Epidemic is Worse Than We Thought: A Wake-Up Call for HIV Prevention
A topic truly without boundaries, HIV prevention is the focus of worldwide attention, yet prevention practices encouraged by U.S.-funded programs remain highly politicized.

Circus or Spotlight? Celebrity Testimony Before Congress

Stephen Colbert's September 24th testimony before Congress has faded from the news, but one repercussion of the event has been a rekindling of the debate on the value of celebrity testimony before Congress.

As the article above points out, Colbert's appearance before congress is hardly the first time a well-known media celebrity has testified. The list of celebrities – well-known musicians, actors and actresses, professional athletes, and popular authors – who have appeared before Congress includes some surprising figures. More surprising, perhaps, are the varied reasons for their testimony.

Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here?

In August of 1940, two years before he starred in the film Casablanca, Humphrey Bogart was called before the House Special Committee on Un-American Activities, to answer questions as to whether he was a practitioner, supporter, or affiliate of any known Communist organizations. In his testimony, Bogart comes across as direct and perhaps disbelieving any genuine affiliation between "Hollywood types" and organizations that were then considered radical.


James Cagney, appearing in the same hearings -- and who had co-starred with Bogart the year before in The Oklahoma Kid -- had a tougher go with the Special Committee, and is asked to explain multiple investments made to organizations and funds who, according to Congress, had a dual purpose in supporting Communist principals.


The experience, and indeed the very purpose of the House Un-American Activities Committee, is a far cry from the humor-filled atmosphere of Colbert's testimony in support of migrant farmers.

More typical examples of celebrity appearances before congress include efforts to encourage funding for research against a particular disease. Still others are to raise awareness about causes of international interest.

Ben Affleck, in July 2001, appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations as part of a Special Hearing on the "Promise of the Genomic Revolution.". The actor testified to the committee to increase awareness of the disease ataxia-telangiectasia, and to discuss his friendship with a boy whose ability to communicate verbally and in writing were both affected by the disease.

Like Colbert, Affleck injects a fair amount of humor into his testimony, in particular regarding his value as a witness. Hearing the qualifications of the speakers to precede him, Affleck characterizes his appearance before the committee succinctly:


Unlike Colbert, however, Affleck's approach also allows Congress in on the joke:


Though gauging the benefit of this Hearing to an external audience is difficult, the result within Congress itself is an attentive Committee and a mutually laudatory experience between the Senate and its witness.

Another example of Congress enjoying the company of one of its witnesses is when the muppet, Elmo, appeared before the House Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations in 2002 to advocate for music education.


The transcript shows that time was allotted for Elmo's puppeteer to prepare, and that no cameras were allowed during that set-up. This is perhaps the most blatant example that Congress was a willing participant in the performance, and that, in effect, the Hearing chamber became a kind of stage upon which a fictitious character was allowed to perform. To the Committee's credit, however, Elmo is not questioned by any Congressional member – the testimony is a dialogue between Elmo and co-presenter. Nevertheless, in typical Elmo fashion, the monster ends his testimony with those words his fans always hope to hear:


These examples are by no means all there is to be found from celebrity voices. Here is a brief list, in no particular order, of celebrities who have testified before either the House or Senate in recent years. An asterisk indicates that individual has appeared before more than one Committee.

Sam Waterston ... John Legend ... Kevin Richardson ... Sally Field* ... Olivia Newton-John ... David Crosby ... Tim Daly ... Billy Corgan ... Josh Groban ... Michael J. Fox ... Issac Hayes* ... Danielle Steele ... Jonathan Lipnicki ... Shawn Colvin ... Kerry Washington ... Jessica Lange ... Gina Gershon ... Todd Rundgren ... John Denver ... Bono ... Jean Wyclef ... Wynton Marsalis* ... Alec Baldwin ... Christopher Reeves ... Kelly McGillis ... Nancy Sinatra ... John Travolta ... Mary Tyler Moore* ... Julia Roberts ... Sissy Spacek ... Dee Snider... Charleston Heston ... Jesse Ventura ... Sheryl Crow ... Tony Bennett ... Michael Crichton ... Anita Baker ... Linda Ronstadt

And very recently, actor Kevin Costner made the news for his June 17, 2010 testimony to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship as a financial supporter of Ocean Therapy Solutions, one of the few companies manufacturing equipment that had a positive effect on reducing the amount of oil in the recent Gulf Coast oil disaster.

If you are interested in finding more celebrities who have appeared before Congress, you can search LexisNexis Congressional. Instead of looking for witnesses by name, however, an easier way to search is by career. For example, searching for terms like "musician," "recording artist," “ballerina," "pianist," "composer," "author," and “actress” in the Congressional Hearings will bring up those whose careers are categorized by such terms. When searching for an "actor," however, be on the lookout for the term used to describe "one that takes part in any affair" versus strictly the performing kind.

What makes Stephen Colbert's recent testimony unique, or perhaps what puts him in closest company with Sesame Street's Elmo, is that these two are among the very few to "perform" before Congress, or make their appearance as overtly fictitious characters rather than as stated actors. That difference seems to have created, in Colbert's case, the greatest ire among observers of traditional Congressional etiquette.

The point is worth discussion: need a celebrity witness before Congress be friendly toward the group? Are Hearings legitimate platforms for performance, or even for performance art? Are celebrity testaments an oblique form of lobbying? And finally, what does celebrity status contribute to the value of a witness statement, and in which cases might that status work to a disadvantage for the proceedings or the participants? All good questions to ponder while we wait to see which celebrity Congress will entertain next.

[Thanks to Jennie Gerke and other staff in Government Information for help with this post.]

The Long Debate Over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Two events last week returned the nation’s attention to the debate on the law that restricts members of the United States military, if they are gay, from openly declaring or overtly practicing their sexuality –- a law popularly known as "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" or "DADT."

The law has been, since its inception, one of the nation’s most widely discussed legislative activities, and few other recent laws come to mind as capturing as much of the passion of American opinion. DADT's history is a complicated one to summarize, but even the briefest overview shows how greatly the issue resonates with Americans interested in privacy rights, gays rights, and in the unparalleled demands of military service.

Last week, on Tuesday, September 21st, the U.S. Senate voted against attaching Sen. Joseph Lieberman's Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, (S.3065), which would have explicitly repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Voting was divided along party lines, as many had expected, and Democrats were unable to overturn the Republican threat of filibustering the vote while any such amendment was attached. Reading the Congressional Record for the day provides insight into the the dialogue and process of the debate on the DADT repeal, before the eventual vote.

It is worth noting that the original DADT policy was also attached as an amendment (H.AMDT.318) to a 1993 Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2401. What is less commonly known is that the DADT text was added partially in response to a failed amendment, H.AMDT.317, that would have allowed the military to directly ask whether a recruit was homosexual or bisexual, and "whether the person engages in, or has a propensity to engage in, homosexual acts."

As recorded in the Congressional Record for September 28, 1993, the debate between the Meehan (317) and Skelton (318) amendments was contentious. Rep. Meehan's comments in particular appear to speak to legislators today:

"I rise today to say clearly that enough is enough. The issue of homosexuals in the military has been far too divisive, has consumed far too much of the Nation's energy, and has robbed this body of far too much of our legislative agenda. We must put this issue behind us, we must do so immediately. It is my hope that we will do so today."

Indeed, President Clinton’s July 19, 1993 announcement of the DADT policy goal acknowledged the very active divide in opinions on the issue, while attempting to prepare the nation to respond positively to the gradual acceptance of openly gay members of the U.S. military.

Clinton’s policy announcement is embedded below.

Returning to the present day, on September 24th, three days after the Senate stalled S.3065, a court decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington challenged the constitutionality of DADT.

As detailed in WITT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (Search for: 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 100781), Major Margaret Witt was honorably discharged by the Air Force in 2007 after making an unsworn statement that she had both committed adultery with another woman, and had previously been in long-term relationship with a woman. The Major sued the Air Force arguing that the DADT discharge violated "her procedural and substantive due process rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Judge Ronald B. Leighton of U.S. District Court agreed, and in his opinion wrote that "the evidence produced at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the suspension and discharge of Margaret Witt did not significantly further the important government interest in advancing unit morale and cohesion. To the contrary, the actions taken against Major Witt had the opposite effect... Her discharge from the Air Force Reserves violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The Air Force was ordered to reinstate Major Witt to active service.

The court’s decision is simply the latest of legal challenges against DADT. For an overview of other cases, the Congressional Research Service published its June 2010 report, "'Don't Ask, Don’t Tell' : A Legal Analysis." For more on military policy toward gays, see the CRS report, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" : The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior," updated in March of this year.

Clearly, for a law that is only sixteen years old, "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" is one of the most widely and publicly discussed pieces of legislation in contemporary history, engendering passionate followers to speak out against and in favor of open recognition of homosexuality in the military. In turn, there are literally hundreds of primary documents available from all branches of government discussing and dissecting the effect of the law.

Even the current president has been drawn out to publicly state his policy goals surrounding DADT. During a fund-raising speech for Senator Barbara Boxer (Calif.) in March, President Obama was provoked by an audience member demanding the repeal of DADT. A video of Obama's dialogue with the heckler is embedded below.

In short, there can be no brief summary or compact legislative history of DADT that also captures how deeply the issue speaks to Americans. This is an on-going, active example of not only the power of the legislative process, but of the importance of the citizenry making informed decisions about policies that, while written by others, may have a very direct impact on their everyday lives.

Stephen Colbert Appears, in Character, Before Congress

If you've been watching or reading the news recently, you’re already aware that earlier today Comedian Stephen Colbert, known for his stint on The Daily Show and his own mock-news program The Colbert Report, appeared today before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives.

Colbert was on the calendar for the House Committee on the Judiciary to make a statement before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. The remarks were intended to speak to Colbert's one-day experience working alongside migrant laborers, an effort designed to encourage legislative leniency toward illegal immigrants performing in jobs that are undesirable to many American citizens.

Not surprisingly, Colbert's prepared comments, linked to from the calendar above, were a much more conservative preview of the comedian's actual statement before the committee.

The C-SPAN Video Archive offers the complete Subcommittee hearing for viewing online, or, embedded below, is the portion primarily featuring Colbert.

These spoken remarks are making their way around the Internet, but transcripts of the comments will eventually find their way into government sources, including the Subcommittee's Web site, the official published version of the hearing, and in turn, into clearinghouses of government information such as GPO's FDsys and in LexisNexis Congressional.

An interesting side note is that while this may be his first appearance before Congress, Stephen Colbert has been mentioned several times by congressional members and witnesses. A search in LexisNexis Congressional reveals that:

• Colbert's use of the word "frenemy" was cited by Dr. Derek Reveron of the U.S. Naval War College in a 2007 hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
• In July 2009, the House Subcom. on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology's hearing on "Enhancing the Relevance of Space To Address National Needs" made note of Colbert's campaign to have an International Space Station node named after him.*
• Stephen Colbert has been named or quoted in hearings of The Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House Committee on Education and Labor, and in a joint meeting of the Senate Finance Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

For a comedian trafficking in political humor and current events, it's hard to knock that kind of credibility.

*That effort went unapproved, but NASA did offer up the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill -- or the COLBERT, for short.

What is cloture?

Today, we have reached the 2000th post on this blog. In celebration of this feat I thought I would tackle explaining cloture.

The Senate defines cloture as "The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes." (Glossary, Cloture entry). Now does this make sense? Well, how about we follow this time line:
1) Bill comes out of committee to floor of Senate
2) Filibuster is begun. A filibuster (in case you haven't seen "Mr Smith Goes to Washington") is a delay on a bill's passage. This delay can be done in a number of ways, through procedures or just lots of talking.
3) Filibusters can continue on and on, until the party(ies) involved stop or cloture is evoked. Cloture requires 3/5ths of the Senate (which unless they have a vacancy is 60 votes) and doesn't stop debate, just gives a limit on how much longer debates can be held.

So, what happened this week? Well, the "Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010" had a few amendments proposed that would have changed how one provision of the Health Care bill passed earlier in the year dealt with reporting income. There were two amendments to this, one from the Republican side (Johanns Amdt. No. 4596) and one from the Democratic side (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4595). These were both proposed and filibustered and attempts on cloture to force a vote happened on September 14th, but neither passed (See roll call on Nelson and Johanns). Therefore, debate continued, but today another attempt at cloture was successful (Roll Call) and the bill passed (Roll Call) without these two amendments. You can see the final text of the bill on Thomas.

Want to learn more about these amendments? Listen to "Senate Fails to Cut Tax Provision" from NPR. Need more Congressional resources? Check out the library's guide.

Women's right to vote

Today mark's the 90th anniversary of the the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. The picture at right is women protesting in front of the White House and is from the "Women of Protest" collection on American Memory. Here are some resources to check out on this day:

• Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the 19th amendment This document was passed by Congress on June 4, 1919 and ratified on August 18, 1920. It finally allowed all American women the right to vote.
• 90th Anniversary page from National Archives This page gives a more in-depth description of the process of passage of this amendment. My favorite little tidbit in here is the fact that Representative Harry Burn was the vote that switched to pass and he justified it with the statement "I know that a mother's advice is always safest for her boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification."
• Constitution of the United States View the original constitution along with the changes and additions (such as the 19th amendment) passed over the years.
• Women's History Collections These are all the collections focusing on women's history in the American Memory site from the Library of Congress. There are four collections specifically dealing with women's suffrage.

Want to learn more about how voting and elections? Check out the library's guide.

What's Happening in Congress This Week?

Today I thought it would be a good idea to find out what's happening in Congress this week. The simplest way to do this is by visiting the easy-to-use Library of Congress web site known as THOMAS. Here you can find out what type of legislative activity is taking place on the House and Senate floors this week. You can also find a list of the bills that have passed Congress and been sent to the president for signing. The Weekly Top Five list of bills on the home page gives you quick access to legislation most often searched for on THOMAS, such as H.R. 4173 ("Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009").

Note that you can download an RSS feed for the Weekly Top Five (and many other THOMAS features), which will allow you to learn about the latest congressional actions without leaving your own RSS reader. Finally, note that THOMAS features a link to a feature on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

If you can't find the congressional resources you need on THOMAS or the House or Senate web sites, don't hesitate to take a look at our guide.

Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports

Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a research agency of Congress and writes reports at Congress' request. These short reports (usually 10-40 pages long) cover recent topics of concern. This week brings us only a few reports, although these reports are in the public domain, there is no central database available to the public. To get a copy of a CRS report, you can request it from your senator or representative. These reports were discovered by Secrecy News:

• People Crossing Borders: An Analysis of U.S. Border Protection Policies
• Potential Stafford Act Declarations for the Gulf Coast Oil Spill: Issues for Congress
  
• FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Court Cases
• Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters
• Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
• Quadrennial Defense Review 2010: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning
• North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation
• Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions: A Review of the Historical Record

Interested in historical CRS reports? If you are here at the Boulder campus, check out the LexisNexis Congressional database, which has reports dating back to 1916.

Not on campus but still want access to additional reports? The library has a guide linking to various additional sources of CRS reports.

House Votes No to Ending Afghanistan War

On Wednesday a debate was forced on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives concerning a resolution to end the war in Afghanistan, the Los Angeles Times reports. H. Con. Res. 248 failed by a vote of 356 to 65. The resolution refers to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of the U.S. Code (50 USC 1544).

The debate featured strong opinions from both opponents and proponents of the Afghanistan War (read the LA Times article). These included the resolution's sponsor, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.).

To find more resources about legislation about war, take a look at our guide to Congress and Legislation.

Senate Reconciliation on Health Care

President Obama is insisting that Congress swiftly pass a health care reform bill, as he urged them to do on Wednesday (find the video clip and transcript on whitehouse.gov). The New York Times reports that Obama is asking Congress to have a simple "up or down" vote on the bill known as "reconciliation," although the President doesn't use this specific term.

So what is congressional reconciliation, exactly? This term is explained in the House of Representatives document How Our Laws Are Made (enter "reconciliation" in the search box of the PDF): "In the Senate, reconciliation bills reported from committee are entitled to expedited consideration, permitting a majority of Senators, rather than sixty, to ensure consideration of the bill with limited time for amendments." The reconciliation process is described with even further detail in the Congressional Research Service report, The Budget Reconciliation Process: House and Senate Procedures.

"But wait," you might ask, "This isn't about a budget." Therein lies some controversy. See this National Public Radio report, posted on Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) web site, which states that U.S. health legislation has a history of being included in budgets and thus being allowed to follow the expedited reconciliation process.

Want to learn more about the legislative process? Take a look at our guide to Congress and Legislation.

Federal Government in Washington DC

What to blog on when the federal government in DC has been shut down for most of the week and looks to stay that way for a while.

First, let's get some snow totals. The 9.8 inches that feel at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in the past two days breaks the preliminary record for most snowfall in a season set in 1899! It would get the total to 54.9 inches (with at least a month of snow possibilities left) shattering the previous record of 54.4 inches. You can read all about this record from the National Weather Service.

Next, when are they going back to work? Well, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has a message stating that the federal agencies (except for emergency employees) are not expected to work tomorrow, February 11th. The Senate is scheduled to convene at 2:30 PM, the House is not scheduled to meet until Friday at 1 PM.

Finally, some pictures. There is a live web cam of the US Capitol where right now at 5:30 you can see the wind blowing the snow in the lights. The White House has a couple pictures of the first storm over the weekend of the White House and Bo playing. But if you want to see fun stuff, like people walking down the middle of main streets that normally are jammed full of cars, check out the Washington Post's Photo Gallery.

Still want more? Then it is time to go check out on of those library guides, maybe the Climate and Weather guide.

THOMAS Web Site Updated with New Features

To celebrate its 15th anniversary and address user feedback, the Library of Congress's THOMAS web site has introduced new features for finding legislative information. For those of you unfamiliar with THOMAS, it is a user-friendly government online resource for accessing legislative information--bills and resolutions as well as information about the lawmaking process. The updates include the following features on the THOMAS home page:

• Weekly Top Five (center of the right-hand side) These are the five most-viewed bills of the previous week. The list shows bill numbers, but you can mouse over the number to see the popular title of the bill. Included in this week's top five are the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.
• Bookmarking and Sharing Tools at the top of the page. These allow users to subscribe to THOMAS RSS feeds and share THOMAS links on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Delicious.
  
• Passed Congress, Sent to President, under "Current Activities" on the right side of the page, links to bills that have passed Congress and have been sent to the White House for the president's signature. Here you can also subscribe to an RSS feed or e-mail the list of bills.
  
• Contact Members of Congress, under the "More Legislative Information" heading, provides tips on contacting your senators and representatives.
• Tip of the Week, bottom right-hand side of the page, provides you with weekly tips on using the THOMAS web site.

Have fun exploring the new THOMAS features. If you still can't find the legislative information you need, see our guide to Congress and Legislation.

Releases from the House Judiciary Committee on US Attorney Firings

The House Judiciary Committee has released the "on-the-record interview transcripts of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the U.S. attorney firings and the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice" (from the press release). This testimony was given last month, but due to an agreement between the committee and former Bush administration to resolve the committee's lawsuit and contempt charges, they were only released yesterday.

The testimony, along with some White House documents, can be viewed online. If you are interested in reading the history (via press releases and congressional documents), check out the Meirs and Bolton Contempt Report and Documents page.

Want to read some media reaction? Why not check out the Wall Street Journal's "Democrats Release Documents Related to Lawyer Firings" or the Washington Post's "Miers Told House Panel of 'Agitated' Rove: Bush White House Counsel Said Adviser Called U.S. Attorney a 'Serious Problem.'"

Want more resources on Congress? Check out the library's guide.

Climate Change Report

The U.S. Global Change Research Program released a new report today on climate change and its effect, with a time line, in the United States. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” has sections devoted to the effect on each region. Colorado is divided in two, the Southwest and Great Plains, but the effect for both areas is an increase in temperature and for the Southwest a possible decrease in precipitation. This report's release today has been highlighted by the White House, with blog postings and live streams of the release (although the link wasn't working when I checked).

Why all the discussion? According to the Washington Post's article "Report: Climate Change Already Affecting U.S.": "What's different this time is the report's scope -- at 196 pages, the report attempts to present the fullest picture yet of the threats to the United States -- and its timing. It comes out as Congress is considering a mammoth bill that would impose the first national cap on emissions, and then seek to reduce them sharply over the next 41 years."

H.R. 2454, "To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy" is the huge (495 sections) bill on energy issues, including a cap and trade provision for emissions. If you are interested in reading, commenting, etc. on this bill you might want to check out the OpenCongress web site. This nonprofit groups provides a forum for discussion of congressional legislation.

Still want more information? Check out the library's guides to climate change and legislation.

Economic Stimulus Bill

Today the house votes on the economic stimulus bill, also known as HR 1, Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. That link will take you to the bill on Thomas, but I thought it might be useful to see some of the other sites, both governmental and non-governmental tracking this bill:

• White House: Economy The new Obama administration has put up a page on the Economy. This page lists statements by the president on the plan and his inauguration speech. For current statements and actions, check out the blog.
• The Stimulus Plan: Where the Money Would Go This site has a java applet that lets you explore the areas where the money in the plan will go and how it will be spent. ProPublica is a nonprofit group that focuses on investigative journalism.
• OpenCongress: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 This site gathers information on amendments and actions on the bill as well as news reports. It allows you to vote for or against the bill as well as comment. OpenCongress is a nonprofit group that works to provide Congressional information easier to understand and respond to by citizens.
• Political Browser This page from the Washington Post gathers the days hot political news into one place and links out to other articles from additional news sources. Right now the top story is the stimulus, but as the day progresses it will shift.
• Fox News: Politics This page from Fox News gathers the Fox stories on the top political stories of the day. Right now it has a number of articles on the republican response to the stimulus plan.
  

Want more information on the legislative process? Why not check out the library's Congress and Legislation guide.

Waxman Becomes Chair of House Energy & Commerce Committee

Last week U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) became chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. He took the reigns from Representative John Dingell, who had chaired or served as ranking Democrat on the committee for nearly three decades. The Washington Post described this changing of the guard as a blow to the auto industry and a boon for environmentalists.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce handles legislation on a wide variety of topics. Its subcommittees include Consumer, Trade and Consumer Protection; Energy and Air Quality; Environment and Hazardous Materials; Health; Oversight and Investigations; and Telecommunications and the Internet. Colorado is accounted for by Representative Diana DeGette, who currently serves as vice chair of the committee.

See Representative Waxman's website to read his statement after being elected to chair the Committee. You can access Representative Dingell's website here. To find out which bills the representatives have sponsored or co-sponsored in the House, go to the Library of Congress's Thomas website and conduct a search under the heading "Browse Bills by Sponsor." This helpful website provides you with bill numbers, titles, summaries, full text of the legislation, current status of the bill, and other helpful congressional information associated with the legislation.

To find further resources about congressional committees and legislation, see our guide.