Agenda Items

It's enormously satisfying to see this spate of articles recently speculating on what specific policies Democrats will decide to push when the new session of Congress convenes in January. There's so much to do, so many problems that demand attention, that these articles become very simple to write.

For example, Democrats might focus on combating global warming:

Dramatic changes in congressional oversight of environmental issues may pump new life into efforts to fight global warming, activist groups and lawmakers said yesterday.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) announced his intention to become the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, now headed by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has said that global warming is a hoax. Warner has called for action against climate change, and his ascension to a leadership post would accelerate significant changes already underway.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- a liberal who has called global warming a dire threat -- is in line to chair the committee in the next Congress as a result of last week's elections, which will give Democrats the Senate majority. Environmentalists have been hailing her impending replacement of Inhofe as chairman. Warner's takeover of the ranking minority member's slot, they said yesterday, would raise even greater hopes for advancing their agenda [...]

Whoever is the top Republican on the environment committee, Boxer said in an interview yesterday that she plans aggressive hearings on environmental concerns, especially climate change. "There is a pent-up desire on the part of many people in the country to get back to making progress on the environment," she said, adding that she plans "to roll out a pretty in-depth set of hearings on global warming."

If the government does not do more to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, Boxer said, "we will be facing economic decline and environmental ruin." Having Warner replace Inhofe as the committee's top Republican, she said, would send "a very different signal."

For his part, Inhofe has helpfully threatened to filibuster any legislative attempt to curb global warming, claiming instead that God would save us from climate change. Yeah, things are different now. Especially when you consider that the Administration won't even comply with a simple law mandating that NOAA produce a report on climate change every four years. The White House has never produced one.

I already reported on Democratic vows to enact robocall reform (a bill introduced by Barack Obama, who appears to be responding to fears that he hasn't led despite wanting to lead the party. More on that later). In addition to that, Patrick Leahy has called for investigation of Laura Ingraham, who on Election Day enncouraged her radio show listeners to jam Democratic election protection phone lines. The Democrats are making a strong post-election statement that these dirty tricks will not be tolerated.

In addition, they're making a statement that Congress will return to its Constitutional role as an investigative body that engages in oversight of the executive branch. As Mark Schmitt writes, investigation is part of governance.

But the point of investigations is not impeachment, its not revenge. One point is to restore some basic standards to government, some things that just aren’t done, whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House.

The other point of investigations is, of course, to govern. The challenges the next Congress faces are, above all, huge problems that we need to find a way out of. Iraq and the fiscal disaster are the biggest. You can't figure out how to solve huge problems unless you first figure out how you got into them. We've given uninformed policy making a try, and we've seen the results.

Henry Waxman doesn't een know what to investigate first. And Leahy also wants to take a look at two Justice Department memos regarding terrorist interrogation and detention. Both Leahy and Christopher Dodd have called for new legislation that seeks to overturn key provisions of the Military Commissions Act. While there's almost no way you could get a veto-proof majority on this, and there's even less of a chance that the President would sign it into law, it's important to get Congress on the record in support of the US Constitution and American values, and set it up for the next Administration to sign come 2009. Dodd's proposal contains what is necessary to balance security and civil liberties, and retain our moral leadership in the world.

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:
* Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
* Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
* Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
* Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence the deem to be unreliable
* Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
* Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
* Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.

Considering that just this week, the Justice Department argued that immigrants could be held indefinitely if they're suspected of terrorism, and that detention status trials to determine who's an enemy combatant are pretty much kangaroo courts, this legislation is sorely needed. But more important, Democrats need to be on the record as opposed to these kinds of tactics.

But there are more agenda items. Democrats want to enact all the 9-11 Commission recommendations. Though the article claims it would be difficult to get this done, I can't see any Congressman actually wanting to vote against port security; the election ads alone would be enough of a deterrent.

Finally, there are several dueling pieces of ethics legislation.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.

None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.

This is another case where Obama is seeking to take the lead, calling for reform with more accountability and a better chance of being more than cosmetic:

Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat tapped by party leaders last year to spearhead ethics proposals, said he was pushing for changes with more teeth. “The dynamic is different now,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “We control both chambers now, so it is difficult for us to have an excuse for not doing anything.”

He is pushing to create an independent Congressional ethics commission and advocates broader campaign-finance changes as well. “We need to make sure that those of us who are elected are not dependent on a narrow spectrum of individuals to finance our campaigns,” he said.

Obama's going to be knocked around by more senior members for this legislation, but he needs to expend some of his sizable capital with the public in order to rally support. The more leadership he shows, the more comfortable I am with him as a leader.

Overall, I'm just happy that these legislative proposals are being discussed and have the ability to be enacted. Democrats have a deep bench of ideas that the public is only now beginning to see, as the minority doesn't allow for any ability to promote a message. As the electoral victory was less a mandate than a chance, it's vital that Democrats get some actual legislative victories and show the country they are not just willing but quite able to govern.