Does Your Senator Hear About Your Constituent Mail, Calls, and Faxes?

We've all heard the calls to action and gotten endless bulletins from mailing lists. Call your senator! Write to your senator and tell him or her you hate an upcoming bill! And one consistent question is, does it work?

All Senate offices are different. Some offices respond to mail from everyone who writes, whether the person writing is a constituent or not. Many offices get piles of mail everyday and can only afford to respond to constituents. Mail takes a long time to actually get to the office because it has to be taken off site to receive treatment. This became a priority when Hart Senate Office Building closed for a period of time when anthrax was found in mail. Staffers for former Senator Tom Daschle handled it calmly and carefully.

When the mail gets to the office, each office has a sorting process. Some of the more well-known senate offices need to cull out a lot of the stuff that's not worth replying to. Usually this includes people who are just ranting, non-constituents, and mass mailers. You may think that sending something en masse is going to emphasize to your Senator that a lot of people feel strongly about something, but it's actually much more like email spam. It's impersonal, doesn't show that the person has a stake in the issue, and it's frankly a little disrespectful not to have taken some of your own time to research and write personally to your Senator. Senators and staffers will listen to individuals with a respectful, logical argument that shows how the Senator can help personally. The response will most likely come from an LC, or a legislative correspondent specializing in certain issue areas, but it will reflect the position of the office. If there's some sort of constituent service that the office can provide in addition to replying, the office will likely do that as well.

How about calls? Again, each office has it's own policy. However, you can usually except calls to be written down and sent up the staff chain primarily on the House side of the Hill. This is because congressional districts are smaller, and the House works differently from the Senate. The House is focused on pleasing and responding to constituents, while Senators are elected to think in terms of both the national interest and the views of constituents. Senators may also be well-known, so individuals across the country may call in just to have their morning rant. Like the mail, you can stand out from the rest by making a fair and reasoned case.

Floor Fight Watch: Reforming the Senate's Nomination Process

Unanimous Consent Senate Blog applauds the work of the Senate leadership and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which voted to report a bill that would remove hundreds of mid-level appointments from the grueling and often partisan Senate confirmation process. There are some people, however, who express objection to such a measure because it gives too much power to the executive branch. This article will give you a very quick rundown of where Senate stakeholders stand on this issue, and the comment on the criticisms and the chance of final passage on the Senate floor.

Senate Leadership
This was negotiated in a bipartisan fashion between the leadership of both parties in the Senate. Therefore, you can add the following to the list of yes votes:
Senator Harry Reid (Majority Leader, D-NV)
Senator Mitch McConnell (Minority Leader, R-KY)
Senator Dick Durbin (Majority Whip, D-IL)
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

I am never too sure about Senator Jon Kyl, the Minority Whip from Arizona, but I presume he'll fall in line.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman: yes
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), ranking member: yes

Rank-and-file
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): expressing reservations
-- Rand Paul spokesperson: "“Allowing the president to appoint czars and bureaucrats without Congressional oversight adds to the problem of an ever-expanding, unaccountable government."
-- David Addington, former VP Cheney Chief of Staff: of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, The drafters of the Constitution “did not give the president the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself.”
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM): fairly definite yes vote, but will be disappointed this measure did not come as a broader package of Senate rule changes

Both Senator Paul and Senator Udall are off the mark in their criticisms. It would be helpful if the Tea Party Caucus did not make everything about the big government v small debate. It's a valid debate, but Senator Paul should remember that the Democratic and Republican leadership agreed on the specific positions that did not need to go through the confirmation process. This measure does not give the President any power to create new positions without oversight, and it won't affect the "czars," who were never Senate confirmable in the first place. The Tea Party Caucus should vote with the broader Republican Party on this one.

To give you an idea of where Senator Udall is coming from, here's a quote from The New York Times.

“This is a start, but it doesn’t address the real problems with the rules or with the
confirmation process,” said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, who has proposed shortening the time that lawmakers can debate a nomination after cutting off a
filibuster to 4 hours from 30. “These are baby steps.”

Mr. Udall helped push the Senate into considering an overhaul of the confirmation process
early this year when he threatened to force a floor fight on a proposal to limit filibusters. To avert a showdown, the leadership agreed to look at procedural changes, and the proposal to
cut the number of Senate confirmations was one result.

Senator Udall's approach, while well-meaning, is too far reaching and misses the heart of the problem over Senate confirmation of presidential appointees. First of all, Senate rules were put into place to protect the rights of a minority in debate and legislation. It is true that there have been abuses of Senate rules on both sides of the aisle, but changing the fundamental character of the Senate through formal rules changes is not an acceptable answer. Nobody likes the new guy who comes into a losing game and blames the rules for everything. Don't change the rules; change how you play the game. The Senate has done exactly that, borrowing the momentum of Senator Udall's extreme proposals to bring the Democratic and Republican leadership to the table and hammer out a proposal that (1) has bipartisan support (2)will truly make a difference.

Will It Pass?
The measure in its current state is virtually assured of passage. Several things could make the process much harder. The sudden attention The New York Times has given the measure, coupled with increasing awareness and activism among the conservative base of the Republican Party, could create a sizable contingent unwilling to vote for the measure. While this would not prevent the Senate from passing the measure, it could create an actual floor fight and make the process much uglier. It is crucial that the leadership of both parties keep their newer members in line.

If you liked this, please feel free to let your friends know - we'd really appreciate it!

Also see this NYT link for more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/us/politics/25nominate.html?hp&gwh=D0528B3E0B59E4EFA793612CF1A51DCD

Capitol Hill Facts: What Your Senator's Car Says About Energy Policy

As Senate rhetoric on gas prices and oil consumption/production hardens, it might be fun to know what Senators drive. In fact, the cars that some Senators choose become deliberate symbols in the debate.

Like most things about the Hill, senatorial rides are easier to spot than you might think -- if you know what you're looking for. Here are some well-known characteristics:
(1) identifying campaign stickers on the bumper
(2) a state license plate (not always)
(3) a special white placard, usually in the front, that identifies the owner as a Senator and a member of the 112th Congress
(4) parked next to or near the Russell, Dirksen, or Hart Senate Office Buildings in between Union Station and the Capitol building

Unanimous Consent Senate Watch won't identify cars we've spotted unless they've been documented publicly by other, more mainstream sources. As you'll find out, there are still plenty of interesting things to find out about these Senate rides. Here are three that reflect differing Senate positions on energy and the environment.

Senator Richard Burr
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) easily has the most notable car on the Hill. It's a 1973 car called the Volkswagen Thing. It's a bumpy gray car with quite a few Richard Burr and Republican campaign stickers on the back, and it's routinely visible on Capitol Hill (we won't tell you where exactly - you have to find it) It got so much attention that ABC News profiled it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpL9e7Bf98c) in a segment. Senator Burr implies that improving energy policy and green standards might come at the expense of safety standards, a stance his car symbolizes. Other important notes: Senator Burr is a classic example of the Southern gentleman on Capitol Hill, and for whatever reason, he was a surprise vote in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Senator Lamar Alexander
An important moderate Republican in the Senate Republican caucus, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is so into electric cars that he fitted his black Toyota Prius with a special battery. We think he's now upgraded to a Nissan LEAF. This actually makes sense. Nissan has a significant presence in Tennessee, employing many of Senator Alexander's constituents in Dechard and Smyrna. Tennessee attracts automakers and industry with a no-state level income tax policy. Of course, this means that the state sales tax is absurdly high, encouraging Tennessee shoppers to take advantage of lower rates in Alabama and Georgia when they can. Word has it that Senator Bob Corker, the junior Republican from Tennessee, helped attract Volkswagen to Chattanooga, TN when he was Mayor of that city. Senator Alexander supports subsidies for individuals buying electric cars, and he also supports nuclear power. It will be interesting to see how he will position himself if/when the Senate finally takes up an energy/environment/climate change bill.

Link: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/09/19/sen-lamar-alexander-buzzes-about-his-electric-car

Senator John Kerry
Senator Kerry's car can also be found somewhere on the Hill. He once owned a 2006 Ford Escape hybrid, and now drives a black Chevy Tahoe hybrid - a vehicle that looks quite presidential. The Senator is the leading Democratic voice on climate change and energy legislation, and the legislative force of nature behind the American Power Act (not passed yet due to political difficulties), the New START Treaty, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

http://www.johnkerry.com/blog/entry/would_you_buy_a_used_car_from_this_senator/

If you liked this, please feel free to let your friends know - we'd really appreciate it!

Obama, Murkowski, Senators Battle Over Oil

Worried about gas prices? One article in The Hill today suggests that rhetoric on Capitol Hill over gas prices and oil production overall "is becoming increasingly intense." See: http://bit.ly/igp7dJ

The article also contains a fantastic fact check on oil rhetoric.

President Obama has staked out a position of reducing dependence, and not focusing on a "drill baby drill" approach, noting that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. Senator Lisa Murkowski fired back on Friday with a WaPo oped which suggested that “[President Obama's line about the U.S. having 2% of the world's proven oil reserves] is crafted to make the audience think that America is both running out of oil and using oil at an unsustainable rate,” Murkowski said.   This isn't particularly surprising for those who know that Senator Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska.

What do other Senators think of gas prices and oil?  At least 11 senators argue for regulation of oil futures.  What does this mean?  Futures are a form of trading on the future value of a good or service.  When used responsibly, they can reduce the effects of volatility in the market due to price changes.  For example, one company may want to ensure that they have a consistent supply of, say, rice at a future date without worrying about sudden price changes or economic shocks.  The rice supplier may want to ensure that someone will buy rice at a certain price at a future date, no matter the economic situation.  The two enter into a futures contract.  These contracts can promote market stability by hedging against economic risk in the future.

However, most futures contracts are a form of gambling.  Speculators with no real stake in the actual supply and demand of oil bet on its future value based on world events and other factors.  There are very few established, regulated markets for trading in oil futures.  Instead, most contracts are bought and sold "over the counter," meaning they can proliferate with little regulation.  Participants in these futures contracts can drive the price of oil up without any actual change in the supply and demand of oil.

Take this quote from Senator Barbara Mikulski's website: 

Oil trades by speculators have jumped 35 percent since the latest round of civil unrest began late January in North Africa and then the Middle East. During that same period, U.S. gas prices have soared by almost 40 percent.  

Speculators can buy $100 worth of oil futures with only $6 down. However, the [Commodity Futures Trading] Commission has the authority to call for higher margin requirements from exchanges where oil futures and various other commodities are traded. Other commodities traded in these same exchanges often require 50 percent down, instead of an extremely low six percent. 

Senator Mikulski joins Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Senator Al Franken (D-MN), and other Senate colleagues to ask that the U.S.'s Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulate these futures further.

Unanimous Consent suspects that if constituents had a full grasp of the underlying factors in oil price changes, Senate offices would be getting an earful about this.

Senator Nelson's press release can be found here: http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=332017&

Senator Mikulski's press release can be found here:

http://mikulski.senate.gov/media/pressrelease/3-18-11.cfm

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

Which Senators Have Been To North Korea?

Unanimous Consent has plenty of random Capitol Hill trivia at the ready.  According to our research, current Senators who have been to North Korea include the following:

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN, ranking member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee)
Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee)
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee)
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Some important figures on North Korea trips who aren't current Senators are:
Bill Richardson (congressman, then Governor of NM, then presidential candidate and Secretary of Commerce prospect)
Senator Sam Nunn
Senator Pete Domenici
Senator Ted Stevens

So how do these congressional trips to North Korea work, and why haven't you heard of them?  Well, they're called "congressional delegations," or CODELs.  Senators and congressmen complement U.S. foreign policy by taking trips to various countries to meet a variety of leaders and important figures, and generally get a better grasp of the country.  These trips don't necessarily represent official U.S. positions and messages, but they're usually briefed by State Department or White House officials and accompanied by key staffers.  Some of the CODELs form around important committees.  For example, Senator Stevens, Domenici, Roberts, Inouye, and Cochran were all powerful figures on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which would have jurisdiction over necessary implementing legislation for the first formal agreement between North Korea and the United States, the 1994 Agreed Framework negotiated in response to North Korea's nuclear program.

The really interesting part about the facts in this post are that:
(1) There has been quiet, bipartisan engagement of North Korea through CODELs.
(2) Several important Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have well-developed expertise on North Korea and other countries through CODELs.

It will be interesting to see how these Senators react if serious engagement with North Korea ever takes place again.

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

Breaking Senate News: Senator John Ensign Will Resign

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) will resign his Senate seat, likely in response to a Senate Ethics Committee investigation.  The most notable thing about this is that "Ensign" is only two letters apart from "Resign."

Probably won't have a huge impact in terms of the Senate.  This is more about the political aspects of the 2012 campaign.

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

Today: New Revelations About The Senate 'Gang of Six' and the Budget Debate

Today, Unanimous Consent Senate Watch brings you an update on the only news that is coming out of the U.S. Senate since the chamber's been out of session: negotiations on the budget, and particularly the Gang of Six senators (three Democrats and three Republicans) who are attempting to come up with a solution.

Time Magazine's article today by Joe Klein is Deficit Deal? The Gang of Six Ain't Talking.  Here's an interesting quote about the negotiations:


There have been "dozens and dozens of meetings," one Senator told me, with the Senate Budget Committee staff adding hundreds of hours to the process. "They want to be able to present a comprehensive deal when they return the first week of May," a staffer said. Agreement hasn't been reached on everything, and the negotiations have been difficult — sometimes apparent deals on specific items evaporate and have to be renegotiated — but there is real optimism that consensus can be attained. "I've been around here for 25 years," Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota told me, "but I've never been involved in a bipartisan budget negotiation of this magnitude and significance before."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2066600,00.html#ixzz1KBuAGABv

I have a lot of hope that the Gang of Six will have "a comprehensive deal," and it has to do with the fact that the Senate is institutionally better than the House.  The Senate can take on bipartisan negotiations based on a collegial atmosphere and trust, whereas there is never going to be a bipartisan deal in the House because there are so few incentives to come to the negotiating table and so many incentives to listen to your party caucus.  It will be the best thing for this country if the Gang of Six comes to an agreement and allows the Senate to drive the debate.  

This is why Unanimous Consent finds another article about the Gang of Six negotiations in National Review so disturbing.  The headline says Norquist to Coburn: Drop Out.  Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has bombarded Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) -- a very conservative member of the Gang of Six -- with a constant stream of attacks for seeming to weaken his principles, compromise, and work with the Gang of Six.  Take a look at this Norquist quote from the Robert Costa  article:

“Coburn is negotiating with President Obama’s best friend in the Senate, Dick Durbin,” he said. “They are playing Coburn like a Stradivarius. Durbin is walking him down into an alley where he is going to get mugged.”

 

Clearly, Norquist is ready to be a member of the distinguished U.S. House of Representatives.  What is his solution to this Coburn problem?  Tell him to drop out of the Gang of Six.  

Big mistake.  Senator Coburn can't be played like a Stradivarius.  Whether Norquist likes it or not, Senator Coburn is an independent person who is doing a tremendous service by being at the negotiating table.  The fact that Senators of different persuasions are represented in the Gang of Six shows the diversity of interests that must come together to get a budget deal.  You get Senator Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Coburn to agree, and you have a serious deal.  

Don't think the interests of the House won't be reflected in the deal, either.  Several reports say that Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) keeps Speaker Boehner apprised of the negotiations, and presumably makes sure House interests and opinions come to the Senate negotiating table as well. 

Many things could go wrong.  But the Gang of Six is our best hope.

For an earlier article on the Gang of Six, see: http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/04/today-in-senate-news-gang-of-six-in.html

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

Why Mitt Romney Can't Win: He Has No Soul

Today, The Hill posted Poll: Obama at 46 percent to Romney's 45 percent.  The poll suggests that President Obama and former Governor Romney might be virtually tied going into the 2012 elections, which implies (1) that there is serious discontent with President Obama (2) that Romney is the best candidate for the Republican Party and that (3) we can take Romney seriously.

Give me a break.  My bets are on Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination.  Here's why: Mitt Romney has no soul.  He has no substance, and no real uniqueness that would endear him to Republican voters.  Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm had it right on this Sunday's Meet the Press when she suggested that Romney didn't have a "core" that voters could really identify with.  Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he is doing better than most people thought he would because he does have that "core."  There is something unique and substantive about him that appeals to voters, while Romney appears hollow -- much like the commentators who are calling him the "front-runner."  Incidentally, these are basically the same people who called Hillary Clinton the "front-runner" in 2008.  Oops.

If your main characteristic is looking like a local news anchor, you have some political problems.  I am still betting on Mike Huckabee to make this an interesting race.

So, this is a Senate/Capitol Hill blog, so let me just toss in some thoughts about what this article says about political reporting in Washington and around the nation.  It sucks.  This is an article based on one poll, which The Hill uses to comment on the entire race.  It's understandable -- no news is coming out of Congress right now, so like me, political reporters must report on what people and polls say.  Unfortunately, it means political reporters aren't doing their job.  We need more substantive reporting on the Hill, reporting that doesn't let airheads drive the political narrative.

Mintaro Oba's LinkedIn - Aspiring North Korea Expert

Feel free to add your comments and questions below or to the email ask.unanimousconsent@gmail.com

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

Today In Senate News: "Gang of Six In The Senate Seeking a Plan On Debt"

When Unanimous Consent is not answering Senate questions, we'll be "live blogging" Senate developments for the benefit of people who don't have the time or energy to keep track.

Abstract of this blog post:
A bipartisan group of six Senators hopes to lead the way on the deficit reduction debate.  This article comments on the political context and the implications, suggesting that bipartisan initiative in the Senate could be an important counterweight to the House.

The current article on the front page of The New York Times says "'Gang of Six' In The Senate Seeking A Plan On The Debt."  The abstract says "Six senators -- three Democrats, three Republicans -- say they are nearing consensus on a big debt-reduction package."

This actually explains a lot.  First of all, Senator Dick Durbin seems to be the clear Democratic lead on this.  He's the Senate Majority Whip and does a fantastic job on the Senate floor.  At an event a few weeks ago, Senator Durbin mentioned the work of the Senate's bipartisan fiscal commission, the negotiating prowess of Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), and his work with the other members.  The Democrats are Senator Durbin, Senator Warner, and Senator Kent Conrad (ND).  The Republicans are Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA), Senator Tom Coburn (OK), and Senator Mike Crapo (ID).  Interesting, I thought, but nothing's going to come out of this.

Then, President Barack Obama announced his big deficit reduction speech at George Washington University, which was basically well-received and drew some contrasts with the Republicans.  So, I was surprised to see Senator Durbin's response:

 “Our bipartisan group of six Senators continues to work for a comprehensive solution to our nation’s debt. The President’s speech makes it clear that he is committed to the same goal.”
See this article in The Washington Post for other reactions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/obamas-budget-speech-reactions-from-congress/2011/04/13/AFMV0VXD_blog.html


Such a lukewarm statement from a member of the party's leadership in response to a presidential proposal means a lot, and the nuances matter.  My interpretation is that Senator Durbin is really committed to the Gang of Six, and that negotiations were ongoing.  It's possible that the timing and content of the President's speech undercut the negotiations behind the scenes and helped tilt wavering senators away from compromise.  Another possibility is that President Obama's proposal to have Vice President Biden chair a panel of 16 members working towards the same goal came across as insensitive to the ongoing negotiations of the Gang of Six.  I think these moves and the broader political context put pressure on the Gang of Six, and is responsible for the front page article today saying that the Gang of Six is close to agreement.  Either that, or certain members of the Gang of Six talked to the press with the hope of putting pressure on other members to reach a specific resolution.


So, what does this mean? Usually, the side that takes the initiative rules the debate and rules the political narrative in the press.  On budget matters in divided government, it's usually the House of Representatives.  The institutional design of our Congress gives the House of Representatives tremendous power over budget and appropriations.  But the Senate has several comparative advantages.  It's smaller and more cordial, with members who've been there longer.  Most importantly, it actually has protections for the minority party, meaning doing business with both parties involved is more of a common practice.  In short, most bipartisan solutions are going to come out of the U.S. Senate.


If the Gang of Six reaches agreement quickly and effectively, the Senate can rule the debate.  The contrast will be obvious.  The House of Representatives will have a partisan proposal.  The Senate will have a proposal that some of the most conservative Republicans will vote for.  If the Senate works faster than the House, the Senate could hold the balance of power and shape a budget debate for once.

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

What's A Secret Hold?

Here's our first question and answer about the Senate.  To ask us a question about the Senate or Congress in general, email ask.unanimousconsent@gmail.com

What's A Secret Hold?
The secret hold may be the most detested practice in the United States Senate.  Anger over the secret hold is understandable, but partially misguided.  Descriptions of the secret hold in Politico, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, and other sources tend to be simplistic and misleading.

This statement is false:
One senator can anonymously prevent the rest of the Senate from taking action on a bill or nomination.

Here are the steps that allow a secret hold to work:
(1) Unanimous Consent
Most matters of procedure, scheduling, and debate operate on unanimous consent.  The Senate also passes many uncontroversial bills and nominations this way.  Controversial and partisan bills require complex procedural safeguards for the minority. But if none of the 100 senators has a problem with waivering some of these safeguards to speed things up,  you have unanimous consent.

(2) Objecting To Unanimous Consent
Since unanimous consent is a way of departing from rules that can protect minority opinions under normal circumstances, one senator or more can insist that the Senate not depart from the rules.  Usually, a Senator goes to the Senate floor and says, "I ask unanimous consent that . . ." such and such be granted.  Another senator can then rise to object, which blocks unanimous consent.

(3) Making It Secret
A secret hold happens when a Senator chooses not to wait until another Senator actually makes the unanimous consent request to object, and instead communicates his or her intention to object in private.  It saves time and changes floor strategy.  Since the objection doesn't actually happen, it's an informal practice that isn't in the rules.  That's why it's so hard to stop.

(4) Prioritizing
Secret holds and objections don't prevent debate from happening and votes from taking place.  But because you can't use unanimous consent to speed up the process and waiver certain rules, bills and nominations that might have passed easily would now face an actual floor fight.  Since these bills were probably very small and mundane in the first place, the floor leader now has to choose between these bills and more beefy bills that may be worth battling for in an extended floor fight.

That's how secret holds work in a nutshell.  Our opinion is that secret holds are abused too often and for the wrong reasons.  But it's important to understand how secret holds actually work to avoid misperceptions and understand what any reform ideas actually mean.

Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.

The New Senate Blog

With the small size and longer terms of the Senate, and complex procedures, the Senate is a beautiful institution that very few people understand.  This blog hopes to explain rules, history, and trivia about the Senate (and Congress as a whole, if you ask us) in a way anyone can understand.  We'll also cover ongoing maneuvers within the Senate.  Email your questions to ask.unanimousconsent@gmail.com



Please feel free to like this article on Facebook! Thanks.