As the Senate finishes up a few important matters before the August recess, including a Cash-for-Clunkers vote, it's time to take a look at what else is going on in regular Senate business.  Unfortunately, the Senate is behind schedule, and it remains unlikely that all appropriations bills will be resolved prior to the start of the new fiscal year on Oct 1.

Of the twelve bills, four have been passed by the full Senate, seven more have been marked up by their respective subcommittees and voted on by the Appropriations Committee while the Defense spending bill still needs to be marked up.  If Senate is not able to get through the remaining bills in a timely manner, then the Senate will have to employ a continuing resolution and potentially an omnibus spending bill.  While congressional leaders tend to try and avoid omnibus spending bills, it's clear that this year's environment and health care-related legislation are tying up a lot of of Congress' attention and resources.

In the meanwhile, the four bills that were already approved (Agriculture, Energy & Water, Homeland Security, Legislative Branch) by the full Senate now move to conference negotiations, where representatives from the House and Senate try to reconcile any differences between House and Senate appropriations bills.

Track appropriations bills here.

CQ($$): Senate to Take Up Appropriations Bills in September

As Congress hits the home stretch before the traditional August recess, it's time to see what Congress has been up to...

As usual, the House is moving along with its bills, leaving the big one (Defense) for last.  It should be noted that the House Appropriations Committee recently increased discretionary budget authority by $133 billion, of which $128.2 billion was for defense spending.  The bulk of the appropriations work now falls to the Senate, where they will likely continue to tussle over items which could face presidential veto, such as F-22s.  Other outstanding, but related items include the healthcare reform and the transportation reauthorization efforts.

As always, you can track the appropriation process here.

Today, four House Democrat leaders, including Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. David Obey (D-WI), released a strongly worded letter that expresses their displeasure with President Obama's use of a signing statement to reassert his right to ignore the conditions placed on the IMF funding for purposes of conducting foreign policy.

The funding was included as a part of the recent passage of the War Supplemental bill and was one of the most contentious elements of the bill.  Some of the conditions were attached to the funding in order to garner enough votes for the bill's passage.  Some of the elements include:

Among other things, the bill required the Treasury Department to oppose loans to nations that have supported terrorism, force the World Bank to pay more attention to workers’ rights, increase oversight of the IMF, and push for greater climate change reduction efforts and more transparency at both organizations.

While it is not unusual for a president to hold this stance, particularly as it relates to foreign policy, past presidents have been charged with using signing statements to alter the intention of legislated mandates.  This latest signing statement is another reminder of the Bush administration, which was often accused of abusing the intent of signing statements.  As a result, this may affect the President's future ability to garner funding for the IMF, World Bank, or other types of institutions of similar missions, which are typically the center of ideological disagreements regarding foreign policy.

CQ ($$): Obama Following Bush Example, Democrats Complain

Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved the 2010 fiscal year Financial Services spending bill.  Along the way, one of the amendments that failed to make the cut was to "enact into law H.R. 1557 (the “Securing America’s Future Economy Commission Act”)".  This amendment would've created a 16-member commission charged with creating recommendations to reduce the country's long-term debt.  With a maximum of four members of Congress, this commission would have had the power to create legislation that would be considered by the House and Senate. 

While a failed amendment embedded in an appropriations bill usually isn't newsworthy, it's possible that rising public concern about the nation's long-term debt obligation might eventually lead to increased support for such a proposal.  Both H.R. 1557 and last week's amendment were introduced by Frank Wolf (R-VA).  Debt commission proposals are hardly new and are typically championed by fiscal conservatives and the defeat of last week's amendment is evidence of the partisan nature of the debate.  On the campaign trail, Obama indicated that he was against the idea of a commission that could potentially circumvent the power of Congress.  With public growing increasingly concerned about the implications of current economic policy on long-term debt, the Administration may need to do something, even if it is symbolic, to show that it is similarly concerned.  

As this proposal is written, the commission would consist of the Director of the OMB, the Secretary of Treasury, and 14 other voting members that would be appointed by the majority and minority leadership in Congress.  (The Comptroller General of the U.S. and the Director of the CBO would be non-voting members.)  The commission would be able to make write legislation that attaches a timer for Congress to act.  If Congress does not submit its own legislation within 90 days after receiving the commission's recommendations, then:

a motion to proceed to the consideration of the legislation shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable, and a motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order. (Sec 13.b.1.C)

While nudging (or shoving) Congress to act may not necessarily be bad thing, one has to wonder about giving privileged legislative power to a commission that consists primarily of members who are not elected by voters.  Granted, it would seem pointless to create a commission that only had the power to make non-binding recommendations but using the appointment system to create the commission greatly reduces the appointees' accountability to the public. 

In addition to the accountability issue, critics of this type of commission say that the primary purpose of this type of legislation is to reduce entitlements.  While this remains to be seen, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Dave Obey, maintains that this type of legislation does not belong in an Appropriations bill.  Supporters claim that the commission would force Congress to deal with potentially politically unpopular problems.

A similar Senate bill, S. 1056 was introduced two months ago by Sens. Voinovich (R-OH), Isakson (R-GA), and Lieberman (I-CT).  The Senate version provides similar wording and some minor differences in the composition of the commission.  Both bills remain in committee, although there will likely continue to be efforts to insert the language into other legislation.

To track other budget deficit and national debt-related bills, click here.

Image by Flickr user mjpeacecorps, used under a Creative Commons license.