Sunny, Breezy American Autumn - Part 1

In case it seems like I’ve disappeared off the face of the Earth, I want to reassure you that, for the most part, I have.  Granted, it’s been an amazing first couple months, and I’ve found the whole process immensely satisfying.  The work I’m doing, the events that I’m attending, the people that I’m meeting; the whole process has been a whirlwind of excitement.  And very little sleep

But, once in a while, my lovely wife, Xu, comes to town to help pull my head out of this world I’ve jumped into, and actually enjoy what’s around me.  Which is why, during a visit a couple weeks ago, I got a seriously American Autumn Weekend.

Day 1: The White House Fall Garden Tour

I am truly fortunate to live with an awesome bunch of folks.  None of them are in the same program as me, which is a good thing, as they give me considerable perspective on what’s going on in DC beyond my own personal experiences.  One of them, J, is a political appointee who has given me a fascinating view into the world of the executive branch for those who move in and out of the system at the whim of the President.  On top of that, J is a great guy to know, and I’m glad to be sharing some space with him.

This explains how, late on a Friday night, the day before I’m to go pick up Xu from the airport, I arrive home to discover two tickets to the White House Fall Garden Tour sitting on my desk. 

Look what the politics faerie left!

The White House Fall Garden Tour is an annual tradition whereby the White House admits thousands of folks with these tickets, gotten through all manner of various connections – and there are lots of connections in this town – onto the White House grounds for a tour of the gardens.  And there are a lot of gardens, lawns, objects, and stuff to see on the White House grounds, including the White House, itself, which one gets to peer at from a very close distance.  Which is pretty cool.

After waiting in line with what had to be at least several thousand people, we were admitted onto the grounds.  The process moved quickly, though, since people had been pre-warned not to bring bags, so there wasn’t a lot to the security process beyond the standard metal detector.  And once inside, manicured lawns as far as the eye could see.

It's not the same without the ridiculous stream of thousands of people standing behind me.

A bit of walking through English Garden style greens brings you within view of the White House, which looks less like itself and more like a stately manor as you come upon it.

Eh, yep, that's the White House.  Right... there.

My colleagues in the birder world will be pleased to note that one of the first things you encounter on entry is a display about the birds that frequent the White House grounds, especially during the winter.  There were numerous displays like this, and I was impressed with the effort gone into educating visitors on the natural components that go into a lovely landscape like this.

I know nothing about birds, so there will be no further commentary on this point.

And then, the White House really springs into view.

White House!

Xu!  And the White House!  (And other people, like, whoa, where'd she get the stripey shirt?)

This is the South view of the White House; the North face of the White House is gated, and is the one in which you often see protesters assembled. The tour took place on the South lawn, famous for events such as the Easter Egg roll and features such as the Marine One landing point.  

There's that fountain you always see in the movies about the President.  And there's a big line of people that we have yet to get to.

The architecture is really spectacular, and a bit difficult to take in at close range.  I’m used to seeing these structures from a distance, so when you try to take a picture, you instead discover the little bits, the ionic columns, lamps, and balconies, for example. 

Two guards stand at the door in the lower-right, and they seemed to be getting a kick out of all the pictures being taken of them, although it was tough to tell. 

There are things that aren’t what you’d expect.  This is the Rose Garden:

The Rose Garden.  I think.

I would have expected more roses.  In actuality, there’s a wide variety of horticulture going on here.  And the residence, where the First Family lives, is behind the doors leading off to the left of this photo.  And if you follow that, you arrive at… well, what are the guesses as to what this is?

The President's Home Office; I wonder if he claims that as a deduction on his  income taxes.

If you said that’s the exterior of the oval office, you win something, I don’t know, give yourself a prize.  You can see the curvature a bit, but it’s sort-of tucked back there.  And, by the way, the putting green is apparently around the corner, there, but I couldn’t get a view of it. 

True story: Nixon used to swing on this all alone in the middle of the night.  Also, Joe Biden uses the top section as  a sweet fort, for playing poker and smoking cigarettes he swiped from his old man.

Oh, but hey, some folks know how to have fun!  That’s Malia and Sasha’s play area.  Actually, a pretty nice play area, I wouldn’t mind going in. The fact that I did not is due to a certain level of politeness on my part and a Secret Service agent on their part, standing out of shot but very much in view.

Note also the framed photos in the bottom left.  Those are situated all over the grounds, and show various presidents over the last 80 years or so engaging in various activities on the White House grounds, including JFK with his horse, George HW Bush walking around  the grounds, and Hillary Clinton planting a dogwood.  They really add a lot to the experience, because they show that people really do live here, and gives a flavor of the sorts of things they do while they’re here.  Perhaps it’s a bit of celebrity peeping, but in this case, it’s our house, so it’s nice to know it’s being used well.

The gardens aren’t limited to bushes and flowers, there are numerous lovely arrangements of trees.

Actually, I'm not really sure why I took this picture.  Still trying to figure it out.  Maybe it's something about the top of that woman's head.  It's a mystery.

Which give way to more splendid views!

This is what I look like in full sunlight and sunglasses.  If you look carefully, you can see the White House in the distance.  Over my shoulder.  No, the other shoulder.

This picture came out so beautifully – the green grass, the blue sky, and the White House framed so well – that I’ve come to the conclusion that I needn’t have been there. Seriously, you could have Photoshopped me into that picture, and that’s about what it would look like.  Credits to Xu who took it, and here she is with me:

That's nice!

And right next to that spot is the fountain.  The whole arrangement is really quite spectacular with the Washington Monument in the background:

Bunch of really stupid-sounding college students were discussing throwing someone in the fountain for his birthday.  Sad part is, about 15 years ago, I was having almost that exact same conversation.

By the way, this day wasn’t just special because of the Fall Garden Tour.  October 15 was also a major Occupy Movement protest day, as well as a day of protest in advance of the MLK Memorial dedication the next day.  So, the streets were filled with protestors of various stripes, some of whom we could see from the garden.  (And we could clearly hear the voice of Al Sharpton rising over the otherwise quiet of the calm afternoon.)

I direct your attention to the line of people in the background, as opposed to the line of people in the foreground.

Did you know that the White House has a beehive?

It's sort-of hidden, as in, please, don't tell anyone the White House has a beehive!

And one of the more popular attractions was the White House Kitchen Garden:

As you can see, this is the White House Kitchen Garden.

I don't know what any of these are, but presumably they're edible.  If the guards aren't watching, that is.  (Protip: They're ALWAYS watching.)

Sorry, I forgot to mention, Keanu Reeves was on our tour.

According to our program, over 1000 tons of food have been generated from the garden since it opened nine months ago.  Regardless of how you feel about the White House having a garden (and I’m not sure why you’d have a problem with it; after all, they used to graze sheep there), that’s a pretty impressive yield.

So, it was a beautiful day at the White House, but I picked up one new bit of information as I was leaving.  I’d heard of the Executive Office Building, but I figured it was some grey office building stashed a block away or so, next to some of the other post-modern structures.

Not quite:

Austria?  Nein!  It's the EEOB!

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is  both right next to the White House and a stunning building.  Actually,it’s a bit strange.  Am I right in saying that this is Edwardian in design?  At the least, it reminds me much more of the sort of buildings being built in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Europe, rather than anything you’d expect to see in DC, where we’re much more about the Colonial and Neo-classical designs. (Again, correct me if I’m wrong there, these are vague echoes from history class…)  A stunning building, but a strange sight to see.

Stunning and strange.

We did take a loop around the North Face, by the way, but it’s tough to grab a good picture, and that one, to be honest, you might as well get from a postcard or an episode of West Wing or The American President.  Still, here it is.

As seen on TV.

So that was the first part of our big American Autumn tour.  Special thanks to the housemate for hooking me up.  A beautiful day for a fabulous tour with my wonderful wife.  (Awww…)  For an afternoon, not a thought in the world toward projects, schedules, or Happy Hours.  Not bad. 

Now that you’ve seen the current President’s place, next time a few pics from the first President’s.

And that's how I spent my summer vacation, the end.  

I Went to a Hearing!

Firstly, for anyone paying attention who noticed a lack of updates over the last week, my apologies.  I have shirked my responsibilities for providing breaking coverage of everything Mike in DC.  However, in my defense, I haven’t done that much interesting stuff over the last week, so you’re not missing much.  (OK, that's not totally true, but I do have reasons, which I'm going to need to post on at some point...)  So, sure, assume it's been quiet.

Which is why I’m posting now, because, y’all, I went to a hearing.

What?

"What is a hearing?", you might ask.  Well, a hearing is that part of the process I wrote about previously where lawmakers discuss an issue as a committee, or as a subcommittee.  This was an oversight hearing, examining past and present progress of an ongoing project, but also played upon future funding questions that will be coming up very soon.  This hearing was open to the public, free of charge, and held in the Rayburn House Office Building.  In this case, I went to a Joint Hearing of the Subcommittees of Investigations and Oversight and Energy and Environment.  That’s two separate subcommittees under the Committee of Science, Space, and Technology.  That is, the Subcommittee of Investigations and Oversight, and the Subcommittee of Energy and Environment. 

Who?

Here are the chairman and ranking member of the I&O subcommittee:

Chairman Brown (R-GA) in pink/black tie and Ranking Member Miller (D-NC) in pink/white tie.  Nice ties.

And here’s the chairman of the E&E subcommittee:

Chairman Harris (R-MD) in yellow tie.  Hmm... needs some pink in that tie.

And here are the people who testified, from NOAA, NASA, and the GAO:

If you're a witness in this hearing, raise your hand.  Oh, okay, from the left, NOAA AD Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D., NASA AA Christopher Scolese, and GAO Director David Powner

(By the way, I found these pictures after the fact.  Turns out, if I’d been sitting on the opposite side of the room, you would have seen my goofy face looking out at these folks.  So, I chose well.)

For this hearing, they were all there to talk discuss the Polar Weather Satellite Program.  (Here’s the announcement)

So this hearing was about satellites.  

Where?

The satellites, right, okay, so has anyone else noticed that our weather reports have gotten a lot better over the last few years?  Well, they have.  You can look up 10-day forecasts, and they’re pretty accurate.  And they can now predict hurricanes and major weather systems with remarkable precision.  And this is being done, to a large degree, using data provided by satellites administered by your Federal Government.  (No, I'm pretty sure you cannot get your weather without the National Weather Service, as some might think.) And there are a couple things going on:

• There are satellites sitting in geostationary orbit about 22,000 miles above the surface of the Earth.  Since they sit in geostationary orbit, they do not move relative to the position of the Earth.  Therefore, they provide an unblinking eye of what’s going on in our skies.  Pros: They never move and give a very nice image of our weather systems.  Cons: They’re really, really high and can't get as much specific weather data needed to improve model precision
• There are also polar-orbiting satellites.  These satellites circle the Earth from pole to pole and pass each point twice a day, at the same exact time relative to the sun every day.  They sit at a lower orbit – Wikipedia says around 500 miles – and can provide different information.  Pros: They provide substantial weather information along a very precise path over North America. Cons: They have a lower orbit, which has to be maintained.

So, this is about the polar-orbiting satellites.  I don’t know much about them, but it’s about time for us to get new ones.  After all, everything dies eventually.  Your TV only lasts a few years, that has much less precise sensory systems, and doesn’t have to be shot into orbit and circle the Earth subject to all the crap that things circling the Earth have to deal with.  So, every once in a while, we need a new satellite.

When?

We need these up there pretty soon.  A satellite has been in development – NPP – and is scheduled to launch very soon, but that one has apparently been beset with delays.  And also, I’m to understand, re-purposing.

See, it seems that NPP was supposed to be an experimental satellite, to test out new software and sensors.  But now it has become the satellite.  Which means that it’s going to have to do as the replacement polar-orbiting satellite. 

But there’s a problem.  There’s going to be a gap in coverage, in about five years.  Here’s what the timeline looks like:

Polar-orbiting weather satellite projected timeline.  The bit with the dashed line is bad.

That big gap around 2017 is because we won’t have another satellite ready to fly yet after NPP is decommissioned, and that’s assuming that NPP lasts as long as it’s supposed to last.

And that’s why there was a hearing.

Why?

Well… there’s disagreement as to the cause of this situation.  The project used to also involve the Department of Defense, so before and during that split, there were managerial issues.  Also, there have been questions about the delays in the production of the satellites.  And the organizations themselves (NOAA and NASA) say that it was not possible to do what they were supposed to do when their budgets were always reduced by the appropriations committee.  (That’s for another day…) After all, if NOAA is supposed to develop the replacement series of satellites - JPSS - defunding them may not help get the job done faster.

But the big thing is money.  The project is expensive, more expensive than was estimated, and the question is why and whose fault.  Rep. Beneshek asked whether the cost should have scaled linearly.  That is, why did 4 satellites a decade ago cost less than 2 satellites being produced now.  And both Mr. Beneshek and Rep. Adams were very insistent on making sure that there are no longer any long-term climate sensors on the satellite.  I’m not sure why that was such a major point, but they seemed pretty insistent. 

How?

So, here’s how the hearing went down.  They swore in the witnesses, after making sure the witnesses were willing to be sworn in. (And didn't want lawyers.) Then, the chairmen of the two subcommittees and the ranking member of I&O made their opening statements, five minutes allowed each. (Footnote: Rep. Miller actually may be ranking member of the E&E subcommittee, but he's on the I&O subcommittee, so if he was the only one there, I guess he was the "ranking member", regardless.) 

 As it stood, there was a clear divide in views.  The chairmen, Republicans (because, remember, they control the House), lambasted the project for cost overruns and mismanagement.  The ranking member of the I&O subcommittee, the only Democrat evident, noted the value of the project and the fact that they’ve had to go through a lot of circumstantial issues, resulting in frequent references to the project being “snakebit.”

Then, the witnesses made their statements, again five minutes each.  The NOAA deputy administrator spoke gave a basic background on the project, discussing its importance and their hopes and concerns for the future.   The NASA associate administrator talked about the partnership and the importance, as well.  The GAO director, meanwhile, talked about his concerns about how the project was managed in the past, as well as his concerns about the quality of the satellites being developed now.  (Specifically, that NPP is an experimental satellite and may not be up to the full mission duration pushed on it.) 

Following those statements, all subcommittee members, in turn, got five minutes each to ask questions.  And that was where things got interesting.  The I&O chairman pressed the witnesses on the management of the program, but the E&E chairman really wielded the hammer.  First, he pressed the NOAA DA on whether the story she told was relevant.  (He argued it was not, and then moved on.)  Then, he asked the GAO director about “shoddy workmanship”, before returning to the NOAA DA on whether this should have gone to the private market.  Her response, that they tried and got no adequate responses, did not seem to mollify him.

My overall sense, though the whole thing seemed rather partisan, was also of some people who had done a considerable amount of research.  That their research seemed to support a particular position is important, but they were no dummies.  They all seemed very studied in the written testimony that the witnesses had pre-submitted, and were ready for battle.  I have a natural sympathy for the scientists – under the circumstances, it’s easy to understand how the project fell behind – but the questions all followed reasonable logical progressions, even if predicated on erroneous assumptions.  You have to be very prepared for these people. 

Aftermath

The hearing was adjourned when they ran out of time and the committee members had to  leave for a vote.  Several pieces of information were requested, and the window was left open for additional requests from the committee.  But ultimately, one of the biggest questions that came out was: What contingency plans does NOAA/NASA have for this project?

The timetables they presented - reproduced above - assume full funding for the coming fiscal year.  However, that is not likely to happen, and the chairman said exactly that.  Congress is likely to fund government for a while with continuing resolutions (CR), which continue the previous year’s funding until a new budget can be passed. And last year’s budget already dramatically underfunded the project.  So, if NOAA’s projections assume full-funding for this year, and the House is basically assuring them that won’t happen, what do they do?

What, indeed.  There wasn’t a good answer on this.  Alas, we may be stuck with more than just the 2+ year gap projected.  It may end up longer than that, which won’t necessarily mean the death of all of us, but may mean poorer quality weather forecasts, and poorer modeling and prediction of hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards. And considering the number of large-scale climatological events in the last few years, that information could really be helpful.

One thought:  I think the congresspeople were asking for a contingency in the form of things you can cut, costs you can remove, other projects you can sacrifice, or how much we need this.  But I’m wondering if perhaps the scientific contingency is to see what we can do with the data that we do have. Do other countries have polar satellites that we can borrow off of?  Can we squeeze a little more, from a modeling perspective, from the geostationary satellites? 

Shoot, we scientists are used to working with next-to-nothing. Maybe there’s a Ph.D. thesis in this.  You have five years.  Figure out how to make bricks without straw.  You might even get a publication out of it.

I'm just a bill...

I, like many others I’m sure, got my civics education from cartoons.   (That’s not entirely true, actually; I had a solid civics class in high school, but the teacher didn’t sing the lessons, so they’re not stuck in my memory…)  If you ask me to envision the legislative process, for example, I can describe to you the process by which a bill becomes law in the Federal government, but only if I start by envisioning Bill the bill sitting dejectedly on the steps of Congress, bemoaning his low status and dreaming of one day becoming a Law.  (Sort of like grad school, but with a catchy tune…)

Bill the bill, and unnamed non-voter.

For those who weren’t paying attention during Schoolhouse Rock, the process is: An idea developed by a constituency is called into Congress by engaged citizenry, and the responsible congressman (manning his own phone) agrees and types up a bill (on his own typewriter!)  If it’s one of “the lucky ones”, the bill might be sent into committee (which is good for Bill because the other bills look like a dangerous bunch of characters) where the congressmen argue over it.  If the bill is reported favorably out of committee, the bill goes to the floor of the House.  If not, it dies.  (Poor Bill!)  Then they vote on the bill, and if the bill passes, it goes to the Senate and the “whole thing starts all over again”.  (“OH NO!” “OH YES!”) And if the Senate passes the bill, it goes to the President, who can still veto the bill, but let’s be honest, at this point in the video, we’re pretty sure it’ll be a happy ending, I mean, it is an educational cartoon…

Bill the bill celebrates becoming a Law with his new friends!

(Yeah, I actually rewatched the video for this synopsis, and I have to say, it holds up pretty well.  You can watch it here if you like…)

Last week, I received a briefing on the actual legislative process from a member of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, which happens to have the same acronym as the Consumer Recreation Services, the all-powerful corporation from the film “The Game” starring Michael Douglas, which makes the whole thing all the more awesome.  (I love that film.  Did you notice that Daniel Schorr plays himself as a cable news reporter?  You know, the one who suddenly starts talking directly to Michael Douglas whilst Douglas is poking around at a large wooden clown with a butter knife?  I love that film.)  Anyway, the actual CRS briefed us on the legislative process, and it’s a bit more complicated.

Daniel Schorr, as himself in The Game, representing the non-Congressional CRS, masquerading as a television reporter for CFN, which is definitely not NPR.  Carl Kasell, eat your heart out.

So, at the risk of putting some actual information into this Blog, I thought I’d share a couple things I learned about the House and the Senate that were not shared by Bill in Schoolhouse Rock.  Caveat: this is mostly from my notes during the discussion, and subject to the vagaries of ignorance.  Except the part about the Speaker.  That bit I copied word for word.

The House

If Bill was first brought up in the House, then he’d do well to stop hoping that one day he’ll be a Law, and instead take the Speaker of the House out to dinner.  Because there ain’t no way he’s getting anywhere without some help in that front.  The Speaker sets the agenda, baby, so he or she can easily bury any piece of nascent legislation he or she desires, whether said legislation sings the blues or not.  (Particularly musically ambitious Speakers might demand that you can’t leave the House without singing the blues.)

Consequences of not being permitted to leave the House without singing the blues.

And that reminds me, I learned something that blew all the hell up my freaking mind:

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE DOESN’T NEED TO BE A CONGRESSPERSON.

You read me right.  The Speaker of the House, that almighty Lord and Commander of the People’s House, who sets the agenda and determines the fate of every piece of legislation with god-like precision, doesn’t even need to be a member of the House.  I’m not sure if the rules are particularly specific with regard to qualifications – age, nationality, etc. – but according to the Congressional Research Service, which I have already noted are the official know-it-alls of Congress – the Speaker can basically be anyone that the House votes to control their agenda.  I just wonder what would happen if the House Rules dictated that the Speaker of the House could not be a member of Congress.  Perhaps nothing, since they’d presumably still be voted in on party lines, but still…

By the way, the House apparently lives and dies by the Rules, according to CRS.  However, whenever they actually want to discuss a piece of legislation, a strange thing happens: They have to ask to suspend the rules:

“Mister Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1234) to rename the fire hydrant at 1745 Palmetto Drive in Oakdale, California, to “Alfred P Newman Memorial Hydro-Safety Implement”, as amended.”

And the rules being suspended, the Representatives only have 40 minutes to debate, no amendments, and the bill must pass with a two-thirds majority.  Which, if it’s one of any number of the small bits of business that the House takes care of in consideration of their constituents, shouldn’t be too tough to accomplish.  Probably.  But that’s why that’s the easy way.

If you actually want to pass something substantive, that’s a whole other bucket of fish.  For that, you need Special Rules.  (Apparently, you never use the “Plain-old, Boring, Regular Rules”.)  In this case, the Bill must be passed to the Rules Committee, which creates the rules under which the bill will be considered.  This includes which and how many amendments will be considered, how much time everybody gets (and who gets time), etc.  It would seem that this committee is pretty important, and so also the importance of its makeup: 9 from the majority party, 4 from the minority party.  Yet another way in which the majority party gets profound power in the House.  (If you’re in a third party, who knows?)  If there’s a piece of legislation brought up by the majority that you want to amend or seriously debate, and you’re in the minority, there’s a very real chance that you’ll never have the chance to debate or amend.

One other means of bringing up a bill: Committee of the Whole House.  That’s basically a committee that, by default, consists of everybody in the House of Representatives.  Why do this?  Well, it was explained this way to me: When you’re on the House floor, the Rules can be pretty generous with regard to speaking time.  Under the Committee of the Whole House, however, each Representative only gets five minutes.  And when you’ve got an entire room full of (mostly) type-A lawyers, many with a background in speech and debate, limiting floor speeches to five minutes seems like a pretty good idea.

Anyway, there are just a few interesting things I picked up on the House.  But Bill the Bill will never realize his dream of becoming a Law without visiting…

The Senate

The most interesting thing I learned about the Senate, and certainly a feature that distinguishes it from the House, is that it functions on a concept of Unanimous Consent (UC).  That is, the Senate functions most smoothly when a Senator proposes something and everyone agrees.  Which does sound nice.  And apparently it does actually happen, but there is some method to it.

Say you’re a Senator, and you want to take some kind of action.  You can ask for UC on that action.  After which the other Senators have 10 minutes to respond.  Silence implies consent, literally.  If there is an objection, however, the UC is rejected.  And only one Senator has to object to reject a UC.  So, obviously, it would be rather silly to ask for UC on something for which you do not expect unanimous consent.  And this actually reveals some still-extant civility in government.   

If you and I are on opposite sides of an issue, I may ask for UC to bring the issue to the floor.  And I would hope for your consent in doing so; it doesn’t mean that we agree on the issue, just that we agree to bring it to the floor.  But if you’re not expecting me to bring it to the floor – you’re not ready, you have other business to take care of, we haven’t finished a compromise – you may respond by rejecting the UC.  So it behooves me to discuss the issue with you ahead of time, make sure you’re ready, and that we’ve nailed down the framework for the debate. 

(Interestingly, you may “reserve the right to object” to the UC, granting us time to discuss the issue at greater length, rather than reject the UC, outright.  I’m not exactly sure what this entails, though…)

As in the House, the UC itself may consist of a complex agreement that specifies the amount of debate, who debates, specific times limitations, amendments, and so on.  However, what if no UC can be reached for an issue?  It’s easy to imagine cases where at least one Senator wants to stonewall.  Any Senator can talk for as long as he or she wants and can remain standing.  Obviously, if people can’t get consent for the rules of debate or to end debate, all business would come to a standstill.  And that’s why a Rule was created (Rule 22) to get business done and end debate in the absence of UC through cloture.

Now I’ll admit that I’d heard the term cloture in the past and never knew what it meant.  Yet it’s the basis for much of the debate about majority power and minority strength in the Senate.  So, here’s what it means:

•           At least sixteen Senators must sign a petition to invoke cloture.  The petition can immediately be presented and read (even interrupting the speaking Senator).
•           Senators must file any remaining amendments on the issue within two sitting (working) days.
•           Two sitting (working) days later, a quorum call is taken to determine the number of Senators available on the floor to vote, the President of the Senate presents the petition, and the Senate votes on it.  Three-fifths of the number of sitting Senators must approve – note that that’s sitting Senators, not present Senators, meaning it doesn’t matter if they’re present or not: they still count – unless the Senate Rules are being changed, in which case two-thirds of sitting Senators must approve.  Hence, 60 Senators to break a filibuster through cloture.
•           If cloture is passed, remaining debate is limited to 30 hours, no Senator may speak for more than one hour, only amendments submitted between the petition read and vote may be moved and they must be germane to the issue, certain procedural motions are disallowed, and no other issues may be considered until the issue is completed.
•           The Senate can then vote on the issue according to whatever rules are applicable, thus ending debate and bringing the issue to a vote regardless of UC.

So, that’s cloture.  Now you know.   

Bill’s Blues

So, Bill is right to be concerned about his prospects at becoming Law.  Still, after going through this process (and let me repeat the caveat that this is all based on my notes and I apologize for any errors), I think there is a lot to be said for a process that remains flexible to changes in legislation, sentiment, majorities and movements, while keeping the government from moving too quickly.  For all we complain about how slowly Congress operates, and they do seem to be operating very slowly right now, the big advantage of the system right now is the same as it was in the beginning: give our representatives in Congress the power to carry out their responsibilities, while reducing the danger of going tyrannical through overreach.

Good luck, Bill.

Bill will just have to be patient.

On a brief occurrence outside a Starbucks on Capitol Hill on a summer morning...

This morning, I was on my way to a certain building named after a certain former President and B-Movie star when I encountered some folks protesting. 

In front of a Starbucks.   

Citizen engagement at the Starbucks 

Now, when I see people chanting in front of a Starbucks, I usually expect them to be demanding something related to Starbucks, dealing with issues such as unionization or wages (although I have no idea what their record actually is in that regard at this time, so don't hold me to it).  But it was a distinctly non-Starbucks message, and it was 7:45 in the morning.

Instead, they were chanting “Pass the Jobs Bill Now” and such things, with a big sign that said “Pass the Jobs Bill” and a bunch of smaller signs.  They seemed rather well organized, and had a pretty slick set of call-response cheers.  It wasn’t the most elaborate setup - the signs all appeared very makeshift and handmade - but there had to have been around fifty people, not a bad turnout at 7:45am. 

But why, you might wonder, would they be protesting in front of a Starbucks?  I know I was wondering that, but I didn’t have to wait long before one of the protesters gleefully told me that Eric Cantor was in the Starbucks. 

Rep. Cantor (R-VA)

Yep, Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Leader in the 112^th Congress (and the only Jewish Republican currently serving in Congress, according to Wikipedia), was apparently in the Starbucks having a coffee or some such (maybe also a Danish or scone, certainly not a bagel because what self-respecting anyone would have a bagel at Starbucks (I don’t even know if Starbucks sells bagels, but they sell music and newspapers and weird little sugar things on a stick, so they probably also sell bagels or some approximation)).  The Majority Leader has considerable power in setting the legislative agenda, and this particular Majority Leader has already expressed his displeasure with the Jobs Bill, so when the opportunity presents itself to present yourself and your views to the Majority Leader, you take it.

I guess that’s an advantage of D.C.  Elsewhere, you should try to get the attention of your Congressman.  Here, you can try to get the attention of someone else’s. 

p.s.  For anyone wondering why I’ve been slacking off on blogging, my response is that I have my reasons but they’re neither interesting nor compelling.  Hopefully I’ll have the couple entries I’m working on done soon.  Either that, or they become moot. Either way, we're cool.

Jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. And America. Jobs.

Funny thing, actually.  I think we're beginning to get the point.  Which increases our effectiveness, which results in improved innovation, which means more jobs for Americans.

See?  Easy.

We spent a fair amount of time yesterday on the topic of how to pitch an idea in Government.  Ideas can come in many forms, but as scientists, advice on a policy is likely to have to do with the ramifications of some action.  The idea could be something as simple as "If you do X, Y will happen." or "If you don't do Z, North Carolina will explode."  Stuff like that.  But, of course, sometimes the fact that Y will happen or North Carolina will explode are not sufficiently compelling on their own.  Which is why you have to take it home, with expressions like:

• "Jobs"
• "Jobs and Innovation"
• "Decent, hardworking [something something]"
• "Think of the children."
• and "Jobs and innovation for decent, hardworking children."

It really doesn't matter much.  The point is it has to resonate.  So, if you're a scientist with important news, make sure to attach it to the bottom line, like "If you do X, Y will happen, which will result in fewer jobs for decent, hardworking Americans."  Or, "If you don't do Z, North Carolina will explode, resulting in the loss of thousands of decent, hardworking jobs and children."  Or something.  I mean, it will depend on the data, I suppose, but you get my point.

So, tonight, President Obama announced his Jobs Bill.  Two things about this struck me:

First, the catchphrase: "Pass this bill".  Said in many different ways, with different inflections.  And legislative action on bills was exactly what I was writing a blog entry about before this speech caught my attention.  Which isn't ironic at all, since I'm in Washington, D.C., Congress is in session, and that's pretty much all that is done around here.  But I like the catchphrase.  It works, and as we were (also) told in our pitching practice, repetition is everything.  Also, budget is policy, but I'll talk about that some other time.  And I'll post the blog about bills later, because it's kind of funny, and sort of interesting, in a way that's probably not very interesting.

Not the President.

Second, the fact that it's a "Jobs Bill" really just strips things down to the basics, which is that people are terrified of not being able to find work.  (I thought this was a funny name when the False President Mitchell in the film "Dave" (played by Kevin Kline) got in front of a Joint Session of Congress to announce a "Jobs Bill", saying that the Federal Government will immediately make sure that anyone who wants a job can get one, which I seem to recall seemed less lunatic at the time then than it does now, but that could be due to the change in National confidence, or due to the fact that I was a teenager when that film came out.)  So, now we have a jobs bill, or rather will have a jobs bill.

I haven't read the bill.  I have only read the speech.  What I wonder, though, is whether it is plausible that the bill can arrange the cost-cutting that the President says it has and that the debt ceiling deal requires.  After all, there's something for intransigent types on both sides to hate: It has Medicare reform and taxes on the wealthy.  Although I did like the bit when, pointing out that the bill includes a cut in payroll taxes for wage-earners, the President noted:

"I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away."

Classy!  I really like the "you should pass this bill right away."  Again, repetition.  It's sort of the Jedi Mind Trick of politics.  "These aren't the tax cuts you're looking for.  You should pass this bill without delay."

Nonetheless, it's a chance for some excitement, because (a) it has a sort of kick-ass tone to it that asserts that action is possible and failure to act is irresponsible, (b) he called out the "political circus", which is what it was, (c) it's at the same time somewhat conciliatory, suggesting not only is this problem bipartisan but also that the solution is too, (d) the immediate Republican response was also slightly conciliatory, suggesting that the seeming-dormant spirit of compromise may be emerging from its slumber, and (e) it has the promise of an actual, coherent plan that includes infrastructure investment and education funding, which are desperately, desperately needed, regardless of what you call them.

Disclosure: I actually didn't really realize what time the speech was.  How would I know? I was in talks all day, didn't really have time to look at the Internet, and I don't watch TV.  I wanted to catch it, but didn't get around to finding a time.  I sort-of figure everything always starts at 8, either AM or PM, but that's clearly only right sometimes.  In this case, while the President was speaking, I was at the gym, and people were talking about all the crazy traffic and what a nightmare it was from the security, stopping cars and so on... because the Capital Building is TWO BLOCKS FROM MY GYM. Oh, and a bunch of dudes running on treadmills kept cheering and clapping, cause, y'know.

So, I guess we'll see what the bill ends up looking like.  And I'll know that whenever everyone else does.

Unless my roommate in Commerce gives me a sneak preview.