Rebecca Carr of Cox Newspapers is reporting that West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd has also had an annonymous hold on S. 2590 in addition to Sen. Stevens. I'm immediately inclined to wonder: Is this characteristic of Senators in their 80's?

Unlikely. Here's an explanation from Byrd's press spokesman Tom Gavin for the Senator's hold:

Senator Byrd wanted time to read the legislation, understand its implications, and see whether the proposal could be improved. There was an effort to pass a bill on an important subject without debate just before the Senate recess. Senators have an obligation to their constituents to know what they are voting on before signing off on any proposal

In addition, Byrd has announced he is lifting his hold on the bill. I suppose the slow-down over the last four weeks during the August congressional recess has allowed him sufficient time to read and understand the mammoth seven page bill.

Rumors are flying that Sen. Byrd (D-WV) also has a hold on S. 2590.

I suppose we need to figure out what Coburn did to him as well?

More at TPMMuckraker.com

Earlier today we blogged about Sen. Stevens' (R-AK) "secret" hold on legislation of a fellow Senator - Tom Coburn (R-OK). We speculated that the reason Stevens' office gave for the hold was probably about as accurate as OMB's deficit projections have been over the past few years.

But what is the reason? Obviously, the shenanigans that occurred last fall over the bridge-to-nowhere earmark are a prime suspect as the two players were trading barbs front and center. Coburn offered the amendment to strip the funding for the bridge and divert it to reconstruct the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans while Stevens gave an impassioned defense of the funding that would benefit his state and the 50 folks on Gravina Island.

Case closed, right? Maybe not. We already commented on the irony of a bill promoting transparency and disclosure being blocked by a "secret" hold. But the irony of this story doesn't end there. We unearthed this eerily-foreboding Roll Call article from last summer where our two favorite Senators were once again front and center, but with a deliriously ironic twist. This time it was Coburn who, back in March 2005, was putting holds on bills coming out of Stevens' Commerce Committee - one which Stevens himself had written.

Though Coburn did not acknowledge putting holds on all four bills, but he did admit to putting a hold on one of Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) ocean research bills.

But that's not even the best part. The article goes on to talk about how Coburn will use holds as a tool to accomplish his goals whether people like it or not, in addition to "air[ing] his views about wasteful and unnecessary government spending" through his subcommittee chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee - the very same committee that Coburn's database bill emerged from. Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up.

So, what goes around comes around I suppose. Or, maybe it's...what's good for the goose if good for the gander?

That explanation seems unlikely given Stevens' track record. What is more likely is Stevens was trying to stick it to Coburn. Stevens is famous for a temper-tantrum he threw on the Senate floor last fall over what he considered was a "betrayal" by his colleagues. Stevens was angry at his fellow Senators - particularly Sen. Coburn (R-OK) - who refused to allow the "bridge to nowhere" earmark to remain in legislation after extensive negative publicity. Stevens even went so far as to say he would resign from the Senate and perhaps even "be taken out of here on a stretcher."

Stevens' office denies the hold was a secret, but you could have fooled me (and a number of highly trafficed blogs). Stevens apparently had objections to the bill for a while, but neglected to attend any of the hearings or markup of the legislation despite sitting on the committee of jurisdiction. How can this be seen as anything other that political payback? There's certainly more than one reason Sen. Stevens might be upset with his Oklahoma counterpart.

TPMMuckraker, with the help of GOP Progress and porkbusters.org (who originally started the tally), has narrowed the list of possibilities of the "secret hold" on S. 2590 in the Senate to five candidates (in fact, in the time I took writing this post, the list narrowed from eight to five):

Robert Byrd (D - WV)
Mike Crapo (R - ID)
Judd Gregg (R - NH)
Orrin Hatch (R - UT)
Ted Stevens (R - AK)

Of those five, two are former Chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and could have more of a reason to be sheepish about disclosure of how the government spends its money than the others (they are long-time Sens. Byrd and Stevens btw).

Keep your eye on TPMMuckraker's running tally of denials of the hold as the secret Senator is unmasked - maybe sometime later today!

A year ago today, of course, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. I don't have much to add to all that's been said so far, except for that we don't really know how the federal government has been spending the money it allocated for the relief and recovery effort.

Amy Liu, a researcher for the Brookings Institute who's been tracking the recovery for the last year, should know what the federal government has been spending the money on. But as she said on the Tavis Smiley show in July, nobody really does.

Tavis Smiley: So, let me ask whether or not Brookings or anybody else, to your knowledge, has any idea of how much of that 100 billion the government did not allocate back to itself, but really does have a chance of landing and being used on the ground in the rebuilding effort in New Orleans.

Liu: Tavis, I wish I could answer that question, but it’s so hard to track that money. But I will have to say that I think we’re only now beginning to see money being spent on the actual rebuilding effort. A lot of that money, I have to say, has gone to the emergency response right after the storm. And only now are we seeing money go into infrastructure building, into housing, and into job creation. And again, I hope that that money can be seen hitting the ground very soon. But I agree with you. The recovery and the evidence on the ground is still very thin.

By almost all accounts, the recovery has not been going well. More transparency on how the money's been spent would help the public hold public officials accountable for what they've done wrong. And maybe more pressure on the administration would speed the recovery, once the anniversary is over and the media spotlight shifts back other matters of national importance.

While the inner-workings of Congress can often be full of illogical, ironic, and bizarre happenings, the latest behind the scenes buzz on Capitol Hill (and in the blogosphere) certainly takes the cake. OMB Watch has been supporting S. 2590 (see here and here for some of the BudgetBlog's coverage), a bill to create a free, searchable, downloadable database of all federal grants and contracts information. This effort is supported by progressives and conservatives, and nearly everyone in between, and has the support of a varied and eclectic mix of Senators.

But it seems there is at least one Senator who is not so wild about disclosing to the public how, on what, and with whom the government spends its resources (think Duke Cunningham). And the best part of it is the Senator (or Senators) in question has put an anonymous hold on the legislation, preventing it from passing unanimously.

Because the bill is widely supported in the Senate (both Party Leaders are cosponsors), the bill's author, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), decided to attempt to fast track the bill through the Senate before the August recess and pre-election pressure push it off the Senate's plate altogether. Passing non-controversial legislation by "unanimous consent" is a common process that helps the Senate save time and still allows a single Senator to stop the bill by objecting.

But the irony of a "secret hold" being used to stop a bill promoting transparency and disclosure of government information was too much for many in Washington to take - and an effort launched by Porkbusters to expose the secret Senator has taken off through the blogosphere. While the approach used by Porkbusters - called a "desperate manhunt" by the Wall Street Journal (apparently they thought the female members of the Senate should not be included in such a tongue-in-cheek reference) - may not be the preferred method of congressional staffers, it certainly is raising the profile of the issue, and hopefully turning up the heat on the anonymous Senator.

Check out the Porkbusters Secret Holder page for updates as the public attempts to shed light on a secret effort to stymie government transparency.

ThinkProgress brings us this quote from House Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA):

There is a misunderstanding, particularly in the media, that earmarks are "out of control," said Lewis, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Federal prosecutors have begun an investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Californian who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, government officials and others said, signaling the spread of a San Diego corruption probe.

The U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles has issued subpoenas in an investigation into the relationship between Lewis (R-Redlands) and a Washington lobbyist linked to disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), three people familiar with the investigation said.

[...]

The government is looking into the connection between Lewis and his longtime friend Bill Lowery, the sources said. Lowery, a lobbyist, is a former congressman from San Diego.

As chairman of the Appropriations panel, Lewis has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts for many of Lowery's clients, one of the sources said.

Earlier this year we told you that the budget reconciliation bill may violate the Constitution because, due to a clerical snafu, the two chambers did not sign identical versions of bill. On Friday, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the bill is, in fact, constitutional.

BNA (sub. req'd):

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Aug. 11 rejected a legal challenge by Public Citizen contesting the validity of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--a five-year $38.8 billion spending cut bill signed by President Bush in February--even though a clerical mistake meant it had not passed both houses of Congress in the same form (Public Citizen v. Clerk,, D. D.C., No. 06-0523, 8/11/06).

[...]

The case stemmed from an apparent error by Senate clerk in December 2005, after the Senate had narrowly passed its version of the Deficit Reduction Act conference report. But because the Senate had rejected three small provisions on procedural grounds, the bill had to go back to the House, where another vote was held in early February.

In the back-and-forth process a clerk accidentally changed a provision dealing with federal payments for durable medical equipment. The error resulted in the House and Senate approving slightly different versions of the bill, in what opponents say was a violation of the Constitution's requirement that a bill be approved by both houses in identical form before being presented to the president for his signature.

The error publicly came to light the day President Bush signed the bill, Feb. 8, raising the ire of Capitol Hill Democrats. The bill had narrowly passed both chambers over intense Democratic opposition. In the Senate, Vice President Cheney gave the tie-breaking vote. Democrats argued that in addition to violating the Constitution, the bill would not have been approved if the durable medical equipment provision--valued at about $2 billion over five years--had been properly included.

Legislation to create a free, searchable database with government information on all federal grants and contracts picked up the endorsement of Republican Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels last week (Daniels is a former Director of the Office of Management and Budget). Daniels sent seperate letters to Indiana Senators Evan Bayh (D) and Richard Lugar (R) urging them to support the bill.

Interestingly enough, Daniels' letter highlights the importance of the proposed database not to decrease funding and root out waste, fraud, and abuse (although he does mentin that) but as a tool for states to be able to identify and compete for additional federal resources. Daniels' - who we believe has a good head on his shoulders - certainly understands the myriad positive aspects of this database.

In addition, the bill received an official cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. CBO expects the legislation to cost $15 million over the next five years.

Ya'll might have noticed an uptick in the quality of the blog since Monday. That would be the work of the newest member of the Budget & Tax program - Matt Lewis.

So, say 'Hi' to Matt when you get a chance.

Welfare recipients who are working toward college degrees may lose their benefits, according to today’s Washington Post. Key quote:

Having grown up on welfare, Rochelle Riordan had vowed never to ask for a government handout. That was before her hard-drinking husband kicked her and their young daughter out of their house near Lewiston, Maine, leaving her with a $300 bank account, a bad job market and a 15-year-old car held together in spots with duct tape.

Maine's welfare agency, she heard, was offering help for poor parents to go to college full time. With the state paying for day care and $513 a month in living expenses, Riordan, 37, has been on the dean's list every semester at the University of Southern Maine, expecting to graduate and start a social work career next spring. But this summer, her plans -- and Maine's Parents as Scholars program -- suddenly are on shaky ground; under new federal rules, studying for a bachelor's degree no longer counts by itself as an acceptable way for people on welfare to spend their time.

So did Congress really mean to keep welfare recipients out of college and in low-wage jobs? Maybe not. The new regulations that could eliminate the Parents as Scholars programs came out of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. House leaders slipped the TANF reauthorization into the conference report of this filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill to force the Senate to approve it. The House had previously voted for reauthorization, but Senate conservatives could never get enough votes together to pass the more severe changes to TANF that the House wanted. As a result, TANF reauthorization was never, as this Center for Community Change report shows, amended or debated in the Senate. Bad process, in this case, may have helped create a bad bill.

Washington Post: Welfare Changes A Burden To States

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - a key swing vote on the upcoming "trifecta" bill - has publicly announced she will vote against the bill. Cantwell's bold decision to stand up for working-class families in Washington and around the country who would get a bad break with this legislation is a significant blow to Sen. Frist's (T-RN) attempts to pass this crass and manipulative bill.

Sen. Cantwell should be praised for her brave leadership in speaking out against this effort. Kudos to her!