Policy Fellow Matt Rumsey wrote this post.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee held a business meeting yesterday morning where they discussed a number of measures, including S. 743, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011. The Act is intended to renew and strengthen previous whistleblower protection legislation passed in 1989.

According to the Project on Government Oversight, the bill has 14 cosponsors and support from more than 400 groups and 50 members of the Make it Safe coalition.

According to Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), who sponsored the bill, federal courts have interpreted the original act in a way that is inconsistent with congressional intent. These interpretations have proved harmful for whistleblowers. Akaka introduced his bill in order to solve these issues.

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) noted that a similar bill had been passed by the Senate last year, but the House of Representatives had stripped it of provisions protecting intelligence community personnel. The bill ultimately failed. This year, according to Collins, the two chambers "worked to achieve a consensus on how intelligence commuity personnel should be handled" that is now reflected in the bill.

Before voting on the bill, Senator Akaka introduced an amendment to clarify provisions on nondisclosure agreements, give the Government Accountability Office more time to review the bill, and provide the Defense Department with access to information and consultation rights in some of the intelligence provisions. The amended bill was passed by the committee via a voice vote and will now advance to the full Senate.

The committee also considered and passed S. 1409, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2011 and S. 237, the Government Accountability Office Improvement Act of 2011, in addition to a number of other measures.

A webcast of the entire hearing is available here.

Thanks to PopVox, you can view and search the bill text below.

Andy Rash of iotacons crafted these amazing 8-bit versions of your elected senator, well done.  I've also gone ahead and added Influence Explorer data to each one, take a look below.  You can embed this image into your blog by mousing over it and clicking the embed icon in the top left corner.

From iotacons.blogspot.com -

TOP ROW: Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mark Begich (D-AK), John McCain (R-AZ), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mark Pryor (D-AR), John Boozman (R-AR),Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mark Udall (D-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA); SECOND ROW: Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Dan Coats (R-IN), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), David Vitter (R-LA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Ben Cardin (D-MD); THIRD ROW: John Kerry (D-MA), Scott Brown (R-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Al Franken (D-MN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Max Baucus (D-MT), Jon Tester (D-MT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), John Ensign (R-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Robert Menendez (D-NJ); FOURTH ROW: Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Tom Udall (D-NM), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Richard Burr (R-NC), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Hoeven (R-ND), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jim DeMint (R-SC); FIFTH ROW: Tim Johnson (D-SD), John Thune (R-SD), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Bob Corker (R-TN), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jim Webb (D-VA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Barrasso (R-WY)

We've just gotten the following document, which gives us the latest on the Senate's plan to post official Senate expenses online this Congress.

Sunlight has been anticipating the first ever digital release of Senate expenses since 2009, when the new policy was passed, as a result of Senator Coburn's amendment, which followed on Speaker Pelosi's new policy.

It looks like the first view of the disclosures will happen in November, and cover April to September. Most disappointingly, the information will be disclosed as a PDF. The legislation was rather clearly intended to create the release of actual data, not data in the difficult-to-reuse form of a paper document. Unfortunately, PDF documents can meet the standard of searchable (as long as the text is exposed), and itemized (if the items are listed), so the Senate is getting by on a technicality, and reaching for the lowest common denominator.

You can expect us to continue to try to get this released as a proper dataset -- more often than semi-annual, and perhaps most importantly, as structured data.

This should still be a big step forward, since the Senate expenses were only released before as a semi-annual book that almost no one knew about. We'll also be watching to be sure that the information available is at least as detailed as the information contained in the old, print edition of these disclosures.

Here's the letter:

Senate Expenses PDF

Senator John Tester announced on Facebook and Twitter that he has joined a very small handful of Senators who electronically file their campaign finance disclosure reports online with the FEC. (Update: Other sitting senators who file electronically include: Boxer, Cochran, Cornyn, Leahy, Lugar, Feinstein and Sanders.) By doing so, Tester sends an important message to all of his Senate colleagues. Even though they are not legally required to, Senators and Senate candidates can and should file their reports of campaign contributions and expenditures electronically.

Disclosure of important information about who supports which Senate candidates is delayed because the Senate decided years ago that it should not have to abide by mandatory electronic filing requirements all other political committees follow. Recognizing the absurdity of this antiquated system, in January Senator Tester introduced S. 219, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. Sunlight has long supported previous incarnations of this legislation, first introduced in 2003 (!) and we will continue to advocate its passage. Unfortunately, Senator Mitch McConnell is likely to put up the same obstacles blocking this simple bill that he has used in the past. That’s why voluntary electronic filing is important. It is the only way the public can have real time access to Senate campaign finance information. Voluntary filing will never obviate the need for a change in the law because there will always be outliers who think they can game the system by delaying disclosure. But it is an easy way for Senators to demonstrate their support for transparency. We hope more Senators will Tester’s lead.

The 112th Congress is about to formally begin, and the Senate may face a number of procedural questions at its start.

In addition to filibuster reform, the Senate Rules reforms are about the nature of majority power in the Senate, and whether one Congress can bind a future Congress. The New York Times ran an editorial today that summarizes the filibuster reform issues succinctly.

Kagro X on Daily Kos is also well worth following here -- the depth of his coverage of congressional procedures is unparalleled.

For the mother lode of substance on filibuster reform, check out this transcript of a Senate Rules Committee hearing from last year. It's often heated, partisan, and entertaining.

While procedural reform isn't necessarily a transparency issue, the partisan fights and configurations of power that they create form the backdrop for public access. We'll be watching closely to see how things change in the Senate.

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) recently introduced legislation that would make it a lot easier for the public to access thousands of congressionally mandated reports. These reports are created when Congress requires agencies to give an accounting of their actions or plans for addressing a particular issue. Once received by Congress, the reports become House or Senate documents, and often provide valuable insight into what the federal government is (or should be) doing.

House documents, according to the Clerk of the House, originate from congressional committees and including annual reports of executive departments, investigative reports made to congress, presidential messages, and other similar publications. (House or Senate documents should not to be confused with House or Senate reports, which are prepared by congressional committees on proposed legislation and issues under investigation.) Rep. Dreihaus’ bill applies to congressionally mandated reports only.

Not all congressionally mandated reports are available online. Electronic access would put more eyes on each document, thereby enhancing their usefulness as oversight documents. My colleague John Wonderlich earlier wrote about how these reports can inform committee oversight plans. Rep. Dreihaus’ spokesman Tim Mulvey explains that “The reason Congress passes laws mandating these reports is so the American people can understand how their government works, and where it may not be working so well.” Driehaus, who sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, believes this bill could play a vital role in educating the public on what the government does.

At the beginning of each Congress, the Clerk of the House generates (pursuant to House Rule II) a report entitled “Reports to be Made to Congress,” which lists all congressionally mandated reports. It cites the law or resolution in which the requirement may be contained and placing under the name of each officer the list of reports required to be made by such officer.

While the report itself is available through GPO (here’s the 235-page report submitted in the 111th Congress: [PDF]) all of the reports it identifies are not. The GPO makes an effort to make these documents available online, but they don't get everything. In addition, even when the documents are online, they are often difficult to find. For a closer look, check out the GPO’s index of congressional documents and search engine.

The Access to Congressional Mandated Reports Act, or H.R. 6026, would resolve several problems. The bill requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to create a central website that will let the public access congressionally mandated reports. The legislation would mandate improved search functionality so that people can find the documents, allow people to be notified when a particular document becomes available, and require public access to the report within 30 days. In addition, OMB would be required to issue regulations to the agencies on how they should submit reports, which must be in electronic format.

Rep. Dreihaus has the right idea. Reps. Towns and Clay agree, as they’ve co-sponsored the legislation. Congressionally mandated reports (with few exceptions) should be available online, and I would add that congressionally documents should be published online as a general rule. Creating deadlines for the reports to be available, requiring electronic formats, and improving access to the public are all excellent ideas.

I do have a few minor quibbles. OMB has experience issuing regulations to make this kind of effort succeed, but it would be unconventional for their regulations to apply to independent agencies or the legislative or judicial branches. Similarly, it is more common for the Clerk or the Library of Congress or some other entity under congressional control to house congressional documents, instead of OMB, which is an arm of the President. Nevertheless, this legislation is a smart move in the right direction toward making government more open, transparent, and accountable.

Eric Naing contributed significantly to the writing and researching of this article.

The Senate is expected to bring up the DISCLOSE Act tomorrow—perhaps a last stand to get the bill enacted before elections in the fall. Senate Republicans have been united in their opposition to the bill—efforts to get the support of moderates like Senators Brown, Snowe and Collins seem to have been fruitless. Without them, the bill will be shy of the 60 votes it needs to survive cloture. And without the DISCLOSE Act, the public will be left in the dark about who is funding political campaigns across the country.

Senator Reid is probably playing politics by bringing up bill knowing it doesn’t have the votes to pass. He’s right to use this vote to point out that Republicans are, in this case, the party opposed to transparency. And the voters should care. They should also ask anyone who opposes the DISCLOSE Act the following:

• Why, when the Supreme Court specifically said, “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages,” are you opposed to a bill that does that?
• How can you claim that the DISCLOSE Act violates the first amendment when disclosure regimes have long been upheld as constitutional? Campaign contributions, candidate, party and PAC expenditures and lobbyists disclosures have long been upheld as legitimate methods of deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process.
• What is the basis for claiming the bill treats corporations and unions differently? The House and Senate bill ensure that unions and corporations are subject to the same transparency provisions, including disclosure of contributions to electioneering communications and stand-by-your-ad requirements. Under the Senate bill, both corporations and unions are required to report transfers among affiliates, including dues, greater than $50,000.
• How is the public served when a shadow group can conceal everything about itself and still influence elections by pumping unlimited amounts of money into campaign ads? The interests of the messenger can be easily disguised by giving a group an innocuous or even misleading name. At its core, the DISCLOSE Act is designed to lift the curtain off of such groups so that public can judge the veracity of a campaign ad and the credibility of the speaker.

The arguments lobbed against the bill are flimsy excuses to justify voting against legislation that would provide the public with critical insight into who is paying for our elections. By potentially killing the bill, Senate Republicans are not only denying the public with important disclosures about campaign expenditures by outside groups, they are also denying the public timely information about Senate candidates’ contributions and expenditures. The DISCLOSE Act includes a Sunlight priority to require electronic filing of Senate candidates’ disclosure reports. This straightforward provision has also been indefinitely stalled as a result of Mitch McConnell-led obstruction by Senate Republicans.

It’s ironic that the Chamber of Commerce would call this bill a partisan power-grab by Democrats. Rather, by opposing transparency, it seems that Senate Republicans and their special interest allies are trying to boost their own fortunes in November by ensuring that Republican-leaning corporate coffers can be opened up to help Republican candidates without leaving any fingerprints behind.

When you apply for a job, you always need a resume. Usually, you also need to furnish some examples of prior work.

When you apply for the United States Supreme Court, well, they want everything.

Tom Lee of Sunlight Labs has made the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan starting this Monday more accessible for citizens and journalists (and Senators!) by putting the emails sent by Kagan during her time in the Clinton administration in "a more familiar interface" - a good old email inbox!

You can find it at: http://ElenasInbox.com

It's a great way to become Kagan for a day and see what issues and policy decisions she was involved in while serving as Associate White House Counsel (among other positions) from 1995 - 1999. There are almost 5000 emails (in about 2800 threads) and we're still digging through them.

Help us research

If you do some additional research on the people, places or events mentioned in the emails and think one of our investigative reporters should take a closer look, email tips@elenasinbox.com or tweet out the information using the hashtag #elenasinbox.

Be sure to read site creator Tom Lee's excellent post on this project - it focuses on the flaws in how this data was originally released. Below you can find some of the emails that I've been reading.

Preview the emails

We all know that all White House administrations leak information to the press all the time. But sometimes it takes a village to get it done! Note the 8 people that needed to coordinate on a leaked letter regarding school class sizes to the Washington Post:

Leak successful! The Times ran an article called "Study Exposes Illegal Traffic In New Guns" that Sunday.

When the AP reported a story regarding President Clinton's intent to keep harsher penalties for selling crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine, Kagan responded with a dim view on how the story would be spread:

Bruce Reed was the White House domestic policy director at the time. Note this is only one of two instances I could find of the f-bomb being dropped in emails sent from Kagan. Many of us probably beat that statistic in our own inboxes. :)

This is only scratching the surface: remember to send us email tips (tips@elenasinbox.com) and tweet the hashtag (#elenasinbox).

If you want to keep seeing innovative tools from us we always appreciate tax-deductible donations!

Note: right now we only have email sent by Elena Kagan. We've begun to look at the emails she received - it's a very messy source so stay tuned to our Twitter account for updates.

As Democrats move forward to pass health care reform attention has focused on a key piece of Senate rules known as budget reconciliation. This post takes Senate vote records covering 13 key reconciliation votes from 1990 to 2007 to show how senators in both parties voted--and how sitting senators voted in the past--on a variety of reconciliation bills.

(Click on the image to the right for a full visualization of these reconciliation votes.)

Reconciliation is a legislative process in the Senate commonly used to pass legislation concerning spending, revenues or the debt-limit. The process has been used 22 times since 1974. More often than not, these bills have been vehicles for large reforms in the tax code, health care and other social programs from education to welfare. One key reason that reconciliation is used for major reforms is that the process is subject to different rules than other bills. Most importantly, reconciliation bills are not subject to cloture votes--the 60 vote supermajority procedure to overcome a filibuster--and thus only require a 50 vote majority to pass.

The voting record shows that reconciliation is often used as a way to pass otherwise contentious legislation that could not receive sufficient bipartisan support to reach the 60 vote supermajority necessary to clear a cloture vote. Seven of the thirteen reconciliation measures examined here passed between 1990 and 2007 were almost universally opposed by the minority party while gaining almost total unity in support from the majority using the reconciliation process.

These seven reconciliation bills include the following:

1) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, also known as the 1993 Clinton budget. The vote went 50-50 with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie. Five Democrats defected to vote "Nay" with 45 Republicans.

2) The Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which sought cuts in Medicaid and welfare programs, restructuring of Medicare and major tax cuts. The vote split 52-47 with one Republican defecting to vote with 46 Democrats against the bill. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Clinton.

3) The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, a package of tax cuts and health care reforms. The vote split 54-46 with three Republicans defecting to vote with 43 Democrats against the bill. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Clinton.

4) The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, commonly known as the Bush tax cuts. The vote split 58-34 with twelve Democrats supporting the bill with 46 Republicans and two Republicans defecting to oppose the bill with 31 Democrats.

5) The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, further tax cuts. The vote split 50-50 with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. Two Democrats defected to support the bill with 48 Republicans and three Republicans defected to oppose the bill with 47 Democrats.

6) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which included cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. The vote split 50-50 with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. Four Republicans defected to oppose the bill with 46 Democrats. No Democrats voted for the bill.

7) The Tax Increase Prevention and Reduction Act of 2005, an extension of tax cuts. The vote split 54-43 with three Democrats defecting to support the bill with 51 Republicans and three Republicans defecting to oppose the bill with 41 Democrats.

One reconciliation bill split mostly along party lines, but was still able to gather the 60 votes that would normally be enough to clear a cloture vote. This bill was:

1) Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which reduced certain taxes for married couples. The vote split 60-34 with seven Democrats voting with 53 Republicans to support the bill and one Republican voting with 33 Democrats to oppose it. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Clinton.

On the other hand, only three of the thirteen reconciliation bills garnered wide support from both parties. These were:

1) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which included reductions in Medicare payments and the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The vote was 85-15 with twelve Republicans and three Democrats opposing the bill.

2) The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a tax cut package that also included education savings measures. The vote was 92-8 with eight Democrats opposing the bill.

3) The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which increased federal funding and loans for higher education. The vote was 79-12 with twelve Republicans opposing the bill.

Two bills caused significant splits within the parties. In one case, both parties were almost equally split in their support or opposition. In another case, only the minority Democrats were split. These were:

1) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, which included tax increases proposed by President George H.W. Bush. The vote split 54-45 with 35 Democrats and 19 Republicans voting in support of the bill and 20 Democrats and 25 Republicans voting in opposition.

2) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which contained welfare reform. The vote split 78-21 with the Democrats splitting 25 in support and 21 opposed to the legislation.

(Ed. note: Votes totals only go back to 1990 because the Senate web site's catalog of votes does not go back further.)

Most of the 100 sitting senators previously cast votes on at least one of these reconciliation bills. Some have voted on all thirteen of them. Below is a spreadsheet detailing the votes by sitting senators on all thirteen reconciliation bills examined here (Present and Not Voting senators have been excluded for space reasons.)

Senators are now allowed to have official Facebook pages, Roll Call ($) reported. I don't yet have a copy of the "Dear Colleague" letter that announced the change, but the news report explains that Senatorial Facebook pages will be modified to follow rules prohibiting product endorsements, partisan material, and unrelated personal information. It's good that Senators Schumer and Bennett were able to make this happen.