Will this Democratic congress accomplish anything?

Question

Of course, other than war whinning. It's so sad and now the public is responding. Their approval rating is below Bush.

Hey Washington.....Why don't you get something done and quit thinking about yourselves.

Disgusting!

Answer 1

Yes, I think they are doing a great job of accomplishing their defeat in 08. The more Pelosi and Reid show their true socialist colors, the better fo rthe Reps.

Answer 2

The lack of bipartisanship and lack of willingness to get anything done is Disgusting!

Oh, wait it is the Republicans mucking things up right now with their minority vote ...

Answer 3

The Dem's got what they wanted, now they wish they never had gotten it. They will accomplish nothing and the people will vote them right back out in 08'. Pelosi and Reid had better enjoy their moments in the sun, because it's going to be right back to minority status in 08'

Answer 4

Well Chico - the Republicans had congress for the last twelve years and did not accomplish a dam thing -

So - Anything this Democratic congress does will certainly be a lot more than they did!

Answer 5

THEY'RE DEAD IN THE WATER. SEND THE RETRIEVERS TO GET THEM. THEY HAVE SUCH BIG MOUTHS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE AMERICA. THEY CAN'T EVEN CHANGE THE TV CHANNEL WITH OUT INFIGHTING. THE DEMS ARE WASHED UP THEY ARE TOO SELF SERVING. I THINK THEY HAVE ALL ENTERED THE PRESIDENTIAL HUNT.
NEXT TIME YOU SEE NANCY PULLOUTSI ON TV LOOK AT HER FACE SHE LOOKS SHOCKED EVERY TIME. SHE HAS A LOOK ON HER FACE THAT SAYS TO ME THAT SHE IS STILL WONDERING WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING HERE.

Answer 6

About the only thing will be spending more money with less results.

Answer 7

If they have their way, they will advance the "cause" of sodomites to the point of exclusion for every legitimate minority.

Answer 8

yea destroying the american why of life

Answer 9

Why don't you do some research before you ask ridiculous questions. I would be more concerned as to why Republicans are so against some of this legislation.

Congressional efforts to enact recommendations
[edit]110th Congress
[edit]House passes bill as part of "first 100 hours"
On January 9, 2007, the newly-elected Democratic-controlled House of Representatives kicked-off its "first 100 hours," a period for which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised to pass six major pieces of legislation.

See Congresspedia article on the Democratic agenda in the 110th Congress.
The first bill that was introduced focused on implementing recommendations originally put forward by the 9/11 commission. Specifically, the bill, introduced by House Committee on Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), included calls to:

Scrutinize all air-borne cargo (within three years) and all ship-borne cargo (within five years)
Send more federal aid to areas of the country at the greatest risk of a terrorist attack
Improve emergency communications
Fight nuclear proliferation overseas
Strengthen a civil liberties watchdog board
While the measure fell short of implementing all of the remaining commission recommendations (it did not address a call for the reorganization of Congress's oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies), it received support from the heads of the panel. Tom Kean, who served as chair of the commission, praised the bill's efforts to secure areas where radioactive material is stored, while former congressman and vice-chairman of the 9/11 panel Lee Hamilton stated, "If this bill ... is enacted, funded and implemented, then the American people will be safer...We are -- all of us on the 9/11 commission -- deeply pleased that the speaker and the leadership of the House have decided to put this bill forward with the No. 1 designation. [1] [2]

On January 10, 2007, the House passed the bill (H.R.1) 299 to 128.

House record vote:
Bill implementing 9/11 commission reccomendations
January 10, 2007
Passed, 299-128, view details
Dem: 231-0 in favor, GOP: 68-128 opposed, Ind: 0


Some of these measures were expected to face resistance in the Senate. Just four months prior, a bill containing provisions to inspect every cargo container coming into America had been opposed by 56 senators. Another expected point of contention in the Senate was the price tag, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) estimated that the costs for implementing inspections for 100 percent of air cargo alone would cost $3.6 to $6 billion annually. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), however, promised to pass a version of the bill, "that will take steps forward to adopt some of the unadopted, unimplemented or inadequately implemented parts” of the commission's recommendations. [3]

[edit]Senate considers bill to implement recommendations
In early March 2007, the Senate began debate on a security bill (S.4) similar to the one passed by the House. The Senate legislation would drop House-passed provisions that would require that all containers on U.S.-bound vessels be screened in foreign ports for radiation, and all cargo loaded onto U.S. airliners be screened for explosives. [4] Like the House version, the Senate bill contained a provision allowing airport screeners (employees of the Transportation Security Administration) to unionize. The Bush administration declared that the president would veto the bill if the provision was included in any bill which reached his desk. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff echoed Bush’s opposition, arguing that unionization would impede the department’s quick response to possible threats. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) promised to help uphold the veto, telling Bush “If the final bill contains such a provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your veto.” [5] [6]

The following were the main provisions included in the Senate bill:

Seeks to facilitate information sharing between federal, state, local and tribal governments, provides for training in handling that information in regards to national security, privacy and civil liberties. It promotes cooperation of all levels of governments through the improvement of “fusion centers,” where information and all government activities would be coordinated.
Would distribute anti-terrorism funds based on the risk potential of a region, state, city, economic sector or infrastructure element such as a power plant or chemical plant. Priorities factors are an eligible metropolitan area (plus military, tourist and commuter densities), general population size and density, a history of threats (prior attacks, home of key infrastructure), degree of threat, vulnerability and consequences of an attack, proximity to international border and coastline and other considerations of metropolitan areas.
Would provide grants and ask for solutions to establish statewide or regional communications planning, system design and engineering, procurement and installation, training.
Would modernize U.S. visa programs under the concept of enhanced security requirements. It would also free visas to countries that are allies in the war on terrorism.
Would establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review executive actions and ensure privacy concerns are addressed through access to relevant documents from any department or agency.
Would direct the Department of Homeland Security to establish and maintain a National Bio-surveillance Integration Center designed to enhance the government’s ability to rapidly identify, characterize, localize and track a biological event of national significance.
Would redefine the term “voluntary national preparedness standards” to mean a common set of criteria for preparing for and managing disasters and keeping businesses open.
Would create initiatives to better integrate public and private programs towards a national
Would develop nationwide qualifications standards for incident management in 6 months and apply them through the entire public / private chain of incident managers. The effort would also create in 90 days a strategic human capital plan to identify human resources for incident management.
Would require the DHS to produce a risk-based prioritized list of critical infrastructure and key resources to include assets or systems that the loss of would cause national or regional catastrophe including loss of life, economic harm, mass evacuations and other economic sector damage (within 90 days).
Would require the president to report yearly on total spending for intelligence and after each year Congress inform the public of amounts authorized and appropriated.
Would expand and develop anti-terror technologies with Israel, Britain, Canada, Australia and Singapore and possibly other nations.
Would provide for 100 screening of all air passenger cargo, carried in the hull on by the passenger within three years. 100 terror-sniffing dogs would be added. A blast resistant cargo box would be developed and distributed to airlines. [1]
On March 13, the Senate approved the bill containing the remaining provisions of the 9/11 panel as well as expanded labor rights for more than 45,000 airport screeners. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized the labor provisions stating that the bill "would make the Department of Homeland Security more like the Department of Motor Vehicles". The President has threatened a veto over the labor provisions. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) Chairman Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs stated, "this bill will make the people of America, in an age of terrorism, safer yet than they have been before”
Funny how the Republican didn’t pass something similar immediately after 9/11

U.S. minimum wage legislation
From SourceWatch
(Redirected from Minimum wage legislation)
The minimum wage is the lowest amount that employers may pay employees for an hour of labor. In the U.S., both the federal government and individual states are entitled to set a minimum wage. When the two differ, the higher wage applies. As of January 2007, twenty-states had a higher minimum wage than the federal wage, while only one (Kansas) had a lower wage. Five states had no minimum wage, while fifteen had one identical to the federal wage. When the Democratic Party took control of both houses of Congress following the 2006 congressional elections, it promised to increase the federal wage to $7.25/hr. in its "first 100 hours" on the floor. On January 10, 2007, the House did so through the passage of H.R. 2 by a vote of 315-116. On January 30, 2007, the Senate ended debate on a bill (clearing it for a vote on the floor) which would raise the wage to $7.25, and also provide roughly $8.3 billion worth of tax breaks for small businesses. [1] [2] The Senate passed it soon after. It now awaits a conference committee.

110th Congress
[edit]Efforts to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
[edit]House
On January 11, 2007, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R.3), sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), lifting the restriction on new federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research implemented by President Bush in 2001. Under this bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be directed to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells. [2]

Under the bill, the cells eligible for use would be required to come from excess human embryos, smaller than the head of a pin, donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics. The cells would have had to have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment. Once a woman was successfully fertilized, the “extra” cells could be donated for research. In particular, the bill required that prior to the consideration of donating the embryo and through consultation with individuals seeking fertility treatment, it must have been determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded. [3]

To avoid cell farming and other efforts to profit from providing stem cells, the bill would require that the individuals seeking fertility treatment donate the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation. [4]

The final vote was 253-174, thirty-seven votes short of a veto-proof majority. As expected, President Bush promised to veto the bill if it reached his desk. The White House issued a statement saying, "The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3, which would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research...If H.R. 3 were presented to the president, he would veto the bill." [1]

House record vote:
Bill allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
January 11, 2007
Passed, 253-174, view details
Dem: 216-16 in favor, GOP: 37-158 opposed, Ind: 0

[edit]Senate
Although it fell four votes short of the supermajority needed to override a presidential veto, the Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5) on April 11, 2007. The final vote was 63-34. The bill had been sponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). [2]

Senate record vote:
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
April 11, 2007
Passed, 63-34, view details
Dem: 44-2 opposed, GOP: 17-32 opposed, Ind: 2 in favor


As expected, most Democrats supported the legislation, while most Republicans opposed it. There were, however, the following exceptions:

Democrats who opposed the bill

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Republicans who supported the bill

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)
[edit]Efforts to expand stem cell research without harming human embryos
Many opponents of embryonic stem cell research instead favored legislation which would expand stem cell research without harming human embryos. Measures achieving this end were considered in the 110th Congress.

[edit]Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007
On January 4, 2007, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) introduced the Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.51). The bill would strive to [3]:

Intensify research that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions.
Promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines without the creation of human embryos for research purposes and discarding, destroying, or knowingly harming a human embryo. [4]
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. [5]

[edit]Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007
A similar bill, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R.322), was introduced in the House by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) on January 9, 2007. It was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. As of March 1, it had collected 32 cosponsors. [6]

[edit]HOPE Act
On January 23, 2007, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) introduced the HOPE Act (S.363), which aimed to provide $5 billion over 10 years for stem cell research that does not involve "crossing the ethical line of using taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human embryos." Rather, the funds would be devoted to research on cells which were already "naturally dead." [5] "Naturally dead" was defined as "having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state." The bill did not address how the embryo may have died, but was explicit in assuring that it could not have died as a result of being created for the purpose of stem cell harvesting or a procedure for harvesting the amniotic or placental stem cells. [6]

The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be directed to conduct and support research under those parameters. The research would aim to develop techniques for isolating, deriving, producing or testing stem cells that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions. [7]

The president for the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical, Sean Tipton, said, "It's not clear that this bill would allow the NIH (National Institutes of Health) to do anything it can't already do. [7]

On April 11, 2007, the Senate passed the HOPE Act, 70


110th Congress
[edit]Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
On January 12, 2007, the House passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 (H.R. 4). The bill requires the federal government (specifically the Department of Health and Human Services) to negotiate with drug companies over the price of drugs for Medicare participants. The legislation strikes a clause in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 known as the "noninterference provision," which prohibits the secretary of HHS from participating in negotiations between drug manufacturers and insurers that sponsor Medicare plans.

The final vote on the bill was 255-170.

House record vote:
Bill requiring negotiation over drug costs
January 12, 2007
Passed, 255-170, view details
Dem: 231-0 in favor, GOP: 24-170 opposed, Ind: 0

[edit]Support and opposition
In support of the bill, sponsor John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, “Forty-three million people can have the purchasing power to perhaps encourage these drug houses to give the government and the American retirees a better price.” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, "This legislation is a common-sense effort to do right by the 43 million Americans enrolled in Medicare."

All but 24 House Republicans opposed the bill. Many argued that the measure adopted in 2003 worked to promote "healthy competition" between insurers to produce lower drug prices. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) echoed this sentiment, stating "With all that's right with the program, it seems unwise and unkind to jeopardize its success." [1] House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stated that, "Many of us believe that competition and using free-market principles in the long run produce better results, lower costs, higher quality and more satisfaction among seniors. And that's exactly what we've seen with this plan." [2]

[edit]President Bush threatens veto
Following passage of the bill, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that officials at both the budget office and the Department of Health and Human Services believed the bill would have little or no effect on federal spending and provide no substantial savings to the government. He bluntly stated that, “If this bill is presented to the president, he will veto it.” [3]

[edit]Senate version introduced
On January 4, 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a Senate version of the bill (S.4.) which would, "amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries." [4]

As of April 18, 2007, it had attracted the following cosponsors: [5]

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) - 1/11/2007
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) - 2/15/2007
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) - 4/18/2007
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) - 1/22/2007
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) - 2/16/2007
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) - 4/17/2007
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) - 1/4/2007
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) - 1/4/2007
On April 18, 2007, in a vote of 55-42, a motion to invoke cloture and bring the bill to an immediate vote was rejected. Six Republicans, Sens. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter R-Pa.), crossed party lines voting in favor of the motion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sided with the Republicans for procedural reasons once he realized it would fail regardless. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who voted against the motion, said that “the Senate protected healthcare access for tens of millions of seniors as well as price negotiations to ensure they pay the least amount of money for the prescription drugs they need" by preventing the bill from passing.

110th Congress
[edit]Bill to lower interest rates on certain federal loans
[edit]House
On January 17, 2007, the House passed a bill amending the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates on certain federal loans. The final vote was 356-71.

House record vote:
To reduce the rate on subsidized Stafford Loans
January 17, 2007
Passed, 356-71, view details
Dem: 232-0 in favor, GOP: 124-71 in favor, Ind: 0-0


Specifically, the bill gradually decreases the rate on subsidized federal loans until 2011, when it hits a temporary low of 3.4 percent for a six-month period. Once that period is up, the rate will revert to 6.8 percent unless future legislation dictates otherwise. “Subsidized” loans are those for which the federal government pays the interest until the student leaves school. [1] The bill would raise fees on and cut profit margins for student lenders to offset the proposed cut. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that the rate cut would cost $8.1 billion over a five year period. Increased loan fees would raise $2.7 billion and reducing guaranteed lender profit margins would raise another $2.5 billion over the same period, according to CBO. The remainder of the cost would be raised by reducing lender guarantees and retaining certain guaranty agency collections. [2]

The bill’s sponsor, House Committee on Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), stated, “For students who use the subsidized program, the interest rate cut is a big deal...It's an important part of the (equation).” He also said, however, that the effort was merely one step of many he hoped to see to address the increasing financial burden of attending college. He voiced his supported for an increase in Federal Pell Grants, as well as an examination of university efforts to control tuition increases. Robert Shireman, executive director of the Project on Student Debt, applauded the rate cut, but said he would also like to see the following changes: [3]

A change in the repayment system so that a student's loan payments are tied to a percentage of his or her income.
Forgiveness of a student's remaining debts after 20 years of regular payments.
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), a member of the Education and Labor Committee, opposed the measure. He stated, “All this does is help those who have already finished their education...It basically gives them a bonus for graduating.” [4]

U.S. PIRG, the federation of nonprofit state Public Interest Research Groups, has estimated that the bill would save the average four-year college student starting school in 2007 with subsidized Stafford loans about $2,280 over the life of his or her loans. [5]

[edit]Bush administration response
The White House announced that it opposed the measure. In a statement, it said, “Student debt loads have soared in recent years, and it is not clear that encouraging more loans is a wise course. The statement did not make a veto threat. [6]

[edit]Senate
On January 4, 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced a Senate version of the bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Kennedy, however, announced plans to support a broader education bill which would halve interest rates on more than just Stafford loans, raise the Pell Grant limit to $5,100, cap federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income, forgive the debt for those who stay in public service careers, and encourage schools to use the government's Direct Loan Program. [7] [8]

[edit]Student Loan Sunshine Act
[edit]House
On May 9, 2007, the House considered a bill (H.R.890), sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), which would bar student loan companies from offering perks and financial incentives to universities to increase business. The industry had come under scrutiny from federal and state investigators over its financial ties with schools and government officials.[1] Specifically, gifts to school employees would be prohibited. Schools would be required to report to students when the loan they have purchased exceeds the expected expense of their education and must provide the borrowers with preferred lending lists that they may or may not use. The Secretary of Education would be required to produce a report within 180 days on the adequacy of the information provided to students and parents after consulting with students, schools and lenders. The report would include the provision of information on applicable interest rates, terms and other provisions of the loans, annual percentage rate, average amount borrowed and previous year rates.[2]

During the debate on the bill, Miller stated, "This legislation would protect students and families from the corrupt practices and abuses that for too long have been allowed to run rampant within the student loan industry."[3]

The bill passed, 414-3. The Bush administration said it was "generally supportive" of the bill.[4]

CLEAN Energy Act of 2007
On January 18, 2007, the House passed the CLEAN (Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation) Energy Act of 2007 by a vote of 264-163. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.).

House record vote:
Bill to eliminate benefits for oil and gas companies
January 18, 2007
Passed, 264-163, view details
Dem: 228-4 in favor, GOP: 36-159 opposed, Ind: 0


The bill included calls to: [3] [4]

Impose a "conservation fee" of $9/barrel and $125/MMBtu for oil and natural gas drilled in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico by any company that refuses to renegotiate Gulf lease contracts signed with the federal government between 1996-2000 (the leases mistakenly omitted a standard escape clause that would have required the companies to pay royalties if oil prices rose above roughly $34 a barrel). Officials from the Interior Department have estimated that if unchanged, the mistake could ultimately cost the federal government up to $10 billion.
Scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks previously enacted by Congress.
Prohibit the oil and gas industry from taking advantage of a 2004 tax break aimed at helping U.S. manufacturers compete against imports. That provision, while not specifically directed at large oil companies, saved them about $700 million a year in the years following its implantation.
Democratic House leaders estimated that the measure would generate an additional $15 billion in revenue for the federal government. Nearly all of those funds would be shifted into a research and development fund for renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and bio-diesel, and conservation incentives. [5] [6]

See the main Congresspedia article: U.S. federal oil and gas royalties
[edit]Support and opposition
Senate Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a supporter of the bill, justified his vote by saying, "The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that." House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a cosponsor of the bill, agreed, stating "These tax breaks came at a time of record profit for oil corporations and were so large that even the Bush Administration called them excessive." [7]

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), however, argued that, "We do not need a tax on domestic energy production and development...Increasing taxes on our nation's energy industry means one thing: more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline." He was joined in opposition by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who stated, "If you want to do things right, let's tax foreign oil." Rep. Stevan Pearce (R-N.M.) also criticized the bill, stating "The San Francisco Democrats want to run cars with wind." [8] [9]

Following passage of the bill, Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) stated, "The big picture problem that is we have an agency that's totally captured by the oil industry and does its bidding, even if it compromises its mission to protect the taxpayer." [10]

[edit]Bush administration response
On January 17, 2007, before the bill passed, the Bush administration expressed its opposition. Specifically, it opposed the provisions forcing companies to renegotiate the flawed leases from the 1990s. In addition, it “strongly opposed” the proposal to repeal the 2004 tax break aimed at helping U.S. manufacturers compete against imports. [11] [12]

[edit]Senate action on the bill
Following the House vote, Senate action was considered uncertain. Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) stated, “I support the principle behind the House bill,” and asked for it to be placed on the Senate calendar. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Finance Committee, disagreed, and called the bill "another pig in the poke" that targets incentives necessary to promote domestic drilling. [13]

The bill was placed on the Senate calendar on January 22, 2007. [14]

Agenda
The following are among suggested items to be included on the agenda by the 110th Congress:

adopting anti-terrorism agenda of the 9/11 Commission
arms control
domestic surveillance
education (including tuition tax credits, reduced student loan interest rates, and grant amount increases)
environment and global warming
ethics and campaign finance reform
free trade (opposition)
gun control
health care (including expanding children's health care insurance, negotiated drug prices, and insuring the uninsured)
identity theft
illegal immigration / immigration reform
Medicare (lowering drug prices)
net neutrality
nuclear weapons (including in North Korea and Iran)
Social Security (retirement plans vs. Social Security privatization)
stem cell research
U.S. budget deficit
U.S. minimum wage
U.S. tax cuts
war in Iraq (also see New Iraq and post-war Iraq) and war in Afghanistan (stay the course? or redeployment? based on recommendations of the Iraq Study Group)
war on terrorism