Source: The Hill

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Thursday placed a blanket hold on all of President Barack Obama's nominees before the Senate, according to his spokesman.


Shelby's holds mean that the Senate cannot vote on a nominee unless the hold is broken using a cloture vote that requires 60 senators or if the senator lifts the hold.

A spokeswoman for Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office said that regardless of his concern, Shelby should not put a hold on more than 70 nominees over a parochial issue.

The ranking Republican applied the holds because of a dispute over a contract to build Air Force refueling tankers. The original deal was awarded to Northrop Grumman, which would have constructed the planes in Mobile, Ala.

But Boeing protested the award to the Government Accountability Office, which negated the deal in a report that faulted the Pentagon's selection process.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/79923-reports-shelby-places-blanket-hold-on-obama-nominees

---

This needs to be sent far and wide.

to get his wrinkled old ass on the floor of the Senate and start talking if he wants to filibuster. In fact, he needs to tell all those old farts to do the same.

This gentlemen's club stuff has got to stop. The rules have changed, Harry, and you're at war.

a day or two and then vote?

Let's go!

"Shelby...........SHOULD NOT!....do that....uh that is all I have to say."

<snip> On September 14, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act (S. 1, 110th Congress). The bill addressed a wide variety of topics such as
ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying. S. 1 also made a number of procedural revisions affecting
the Senate, one which is the focus of this report. Section 512 of Title V of the new law (P.L. 110-
81) specifically dealt with the issue of “holds.” Holds are an informal custom of the Senate that,
until enactment of S. 1, were mentioned neither in chamber rules or precedents nor in any statute.
A hold, as one Senator explained, is “a notice by a Senator to his or her party leader of an
intention to object to bringing a bill or nomination to the floor for consideration.”1 Their potency
as a blocking, delaying, or bargaining device is linked to Senators’ ability to conduct filibusters or
object to unanimous consent agreements or requests. To be sure, it is ultimately up to the majority
leader of the Senate—who sets the chamber’s agenda after consulting various people—to decide
whether, or for how long, he will honor a colleague’s hold. If the majority leader cannot get
unanimous consent to bring up a measure or matter, then he can make a motion to call it up. That
motion is subject to extended debate, but no Senator can, under the practices of the Senate,
prevent the majority leader from making that motion.
The controversy that precipitated enactment of Section 512 involved secret or anonymous holds.
Two Senators in particular worked for years to end the practice of lawmakers placing secret holds
on measures or matters. Their goal was not to eliminate holds but to infuse the custom with
transparency and accountability so Senators would know which of their colleagues had holds on
various bills or nominations. Knowing which Senator(s) has a hold on a measure or matter
enables senatorial advocates of those proposals to meet with the “holder” to discuss whether, or
under what circumstances, the hold might be lifted.
In 2006, for example, these two proponents of ending secret holds succeeded in winning adoption
of an amendment to an ethics, lobbying, and rules reform package (S. 2349) that would end the
practice by establishing a new standing order of the Senate. Like Section 512 of S. 1, their
amendment required the majority and minority leaders to recognize a hold—called a “notice of
intent to object to proceeding”—only if it was provided in writing by a Member of their caucus.
Moreover, noted a former party leader, “for the hold to be honored, the Senator objecting would
have to publish his objection in the Congressional Record 3 days after the notice is provided to a
leader.”2 One of the principal authors of the amendment provided this explanation of their
proposal:<snip>

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*QLS%3E%23@%20%20%0A

Feel free to read the rest for yourself.

"(The holds') potency as a blocking, delaying, or bargaining device is liked to Senators' ability to conduct filibusters or object to unanimous consent agreements or requests."

And the Senate's website defines "hold" as: "An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure."

I think Sen. Reid could simply call his bluff and see if he'll go through with the threat.

I think Obama needed to get some of these through on recess appointments.

No, it is not. Filibuster is at least one senator being willing to keep debate open (by actually talking) and not enough senators being willing to vote to end debate. This "courtesy filibuster" is BS that needs to end.

The information states that the majority leader sets the agenda and decides whether or not to allow the hold to continue. He can bring the matter to a vote before the Senate. OK, so then it could become a filibuster. And if it does, then we can deal with it as such.

while technically (or procedurally) a "hold" may be different than a filibuster, it has the same affect: One person, or a minority coalition is blocking Senate business from being completed. They are denying a motion (or matter) from being voted on because they have reason to believe they will lose.

I wanted to refer the site to someone who doesn't believe this, but this is what came up --

"Sorry, the web page you have requested is experiencing technical difficulties. The Webmaster has been alerted.
You will be automatically redirected to the www.senate.gov home page after 10 seconds.

If this problem persists, please contact the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at webmaster@sec.senate.gov."

In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn")<15> brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority:<16>

The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. <...> The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.
The constitution provides that 'a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single <144 U.S. 1, 6> member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.
Nevertheless, the current Senate rules state that 67 votes are required for future rule changes.<17> Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option, also called the "constitutional option" for political reasons and because of its roots in constitutional majoritarianism.

Quoted from Wikipedia

And that roadmap is recess appointments. Let's see how testicular the President is during the next recess.

This isn't a filibuster.

A long, long time ago. This "courtesy filibuster" was a mistake from whenever the @#$%-ing thing started.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity"


Were NOT meant to be INSTRUCTIONS on how to be a successful Democratic Senate leader.

And what rough beast....

or let the gop run the country

tha's his name - Porrky!

Obstructionist. How many times did we hear that word during the Bush administration? :eyes: And there wasn't a fraction of the supposed "obstructionism" going on then as there is now. :grr:

And Contracting is "Fair"

:puke:

boeing is headquartered in chicago. deep, deep blue. so that is probably what the guy objects to.

nail on the head, be that as it may why can't reid get his shit together and get things done?

I find it funny that his objection is over the air tanker program.

The Northrop Grumman plane is assembled in Alabama......but most of its parts are made in Europe. By contrast, Boeing's proposal is mostly made in the US.

in the news. One freaking pub is holding up hundreds of confirmations because he's whining about money. If it were a Dem doing this, the press would be screaming for his/her head.

Have every democratic politician call the GOP (and Shelby by name) as obstructionists in every single interview from now until Shelby and the GOP concede. Discuss nothing else, answer no reporter's questions except to say: The GOP and Shelby have halted the government with filibusters."

Do that and all this 60 vote bullshit will end Monday.

Or can a hold simply be ignored? I think recent history offers clues, no?

In any event. It appears the repukes have decided to trash the very concept of the Senate as a deliberative institution, as a legislative institution of any sort.

So, much as I hate to say it, it may be time for the Democrats currently in control to simply abandon the "gentleman's agreements" that seem to dictate who the Senate functions (or doesn't).

In the past, I'd have cautioned that doing so might come back to haunt us in years ahead, when the balance of power inevitably shifts. But I frankly just don't care anymore. There's too much urgent work to be done. And if the whole institution has broken down -- as it seems to have -- then let's scrap it entirely and start over from scratch, in terms of the "rules of the Senate," and take our chances that we can establish new rules and customs going forward.

Even if the press doesn't cover the first several press conferences, the sheer repetition of them might force them to eventually cover it.

since last July.

I could be wrong. . .

see and understand what is going on. The Republicans should not be rewarded with elections victories because they are obstructionists.

Mindless Sheep. I don't see any real change ever happening. We need generations of progress in the masses to get an ounce of change.

My 2 year old won't see it in his lifetime either.

Federal Eye - Sen. Richard Shelby blocking Obama nomineesRichard Shelby (R-Ala.) has placed a blanket hold on more than 70 Obama ... He is a birther and still denies President Obama is a U.S. citizen. ...
voices.washingtonpost.com/.../sen_shelby_blocking_all_obama.html - 5 hours ago

For whatever reason , the democrats rarely go after or punish those who stand in their way. They end up looking like pussycats.

... Executive Orders, whatever the hell he needs to do to end-run that Self-serving AssHat Shelby.

:applause:

The next Senate recess is Feb. 15 - 21 for President's day. Time to put them ALL in as recess appointments - en masse. The end.

n/t.

just to stick it to that asshole Shelby.

and the woman wouldn't tell me how many. All she would say is "Senator Shelby has put a hold on several nominees". I repeatedly asked how many & why she wouldn't tell me how many. She wouldn't even answer the question 'do you know how many'. Public fucking servants my ass, this makes me furious!!!!!

And I am even more disheartened by the morons with comments like 'someone should have blocked the Kenyan's appointments a year ago". I'm ready for a revolution, these fucking idiots have had there time to fucking ruin the country. They need to get the fuck out of the way so that the mess can be cleaned up.

Shelby's #: 202-224-5744

...I'm trying to ask everyone on sites that I visit to contact
this jacka** and tell him to stop holding up the business of America...

Take your pick and contact him...PLEASE tell as many others to do it as well!

Email page:
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorShelby.EmailSenatorShelby

Direct email address:
senator@shelby.senate.gov

Washington Office:
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Telephone: (202) 224-5744
Fax: (202) 224-3416

Huntsville Office:
1000 Glenn Hearn Boulevard #20127
Huntsville, AL 35824
Telephone: (256) 772-0460
Fax: (256) 772-8387

Birmingham Office:
1800 5th Avenue North
321 Federal Building
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 731-1384
Fax: (205) 731-1386

Tuscaloosa Office:
1118 Greensboro Avenue
Room 240
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: (205) 759-5047
Fax: (205) 759-5067

Montgomery Office:
15 Lee Street
FMJ Federal Courthouse, 15 Lee Street, Suite 208
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 223-7303
Fax: (334) 223-7317

Mobile Office:
113 St. Joseph Street
445 U.S. Federal Courthouse
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 694-4164
Fax: (251) 694-4166

Carpet bomb him with calls.

works best if you're a local call, though. I imagine his DC office is closed by now because of the snow (God Hate Republicans?).

and I wasn't too nice.

It's time to boycott Alabama!

when he placed a hold on the us attorney's appointment in New Orleans?

Vitter objected to all of Obama's nominees ,then released his hold when Vitter's choice was named by Obama-just after the Landrieu office was victimized by O'Keefe and his telePHONY cohorts.

BTW, Shelby is one of those who went to bat to give Toyota millions of dollars in subsidies to bring an autoplant to ALabama.

Wonder with all of Toyota's troubles have something to do with Shelby looking for additional funding.

He saw that what his buddy did worked out for him and now he's doing the same, but on a larger scale. He figures if they capitulated before, they will again.

nothing getting accomplished. These Republicans are ruining this country.

Dubya used to wait until Congressional recesses to appoint his picks so they could avoid Congressional approval, didn't he. I really don't understand the specific rules so this may not apply, but I thought I remembered Chimpy pulling this on a regular basis.

The Chimp used to wait until Congress recessed to appoint the kinds of scumbags who shouldn't even have law licenses much less be on the Federal bench.

The Republicants would be pissed if Obama tried it, but that would backfire because of Bush's love of recess appointments.

But otherwise, I don't think they'll ever approve any of his picks for anything anytime.

so why would Shelby wait until now to grandstand like this?

Oh, right. The RW noise machine got him his 41st vote by pushing Brownnose 24/7. :eyes:

*facepalm*

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Shelby is putting this country in danger. When does he come up for reelection? Reid needs to relinquish his seat to someone with bigger balls and stronger spine.

PERIOD

The more I read about this, the madder I get. This another of the same old pigs at the trough.

The whole thing is outrageous. I also call it blackmail, extortion, milking, bleeding, ransom, shake-down, fleecing, corrupt...a small sampling of what this is.

SHELBY IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN LOBBY!
SHELBY IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN LOBBY!
SHELBY IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN LOBBY!
SHELBY IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN LOBBY!
SHELBY IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN LOBBY!
SHELBY IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN LOBBY!
TYPICAL GOP MOVE TO STOP PROGRESS AND FATTEN THEIR OWN POCKETS WHILE THE COUNTRY SUFFERS

on nominations. I understand the fillibuster, but a single fucking senator can do this?

One single Senator is all it takes for a filibuster. All he has to do is wag his tongue, and eventually the President of the Senate will move on to other business to stop wasting everybody's time; it takes sixty opposing him/her for cloture. Obviously if it's 99-1 that filibuster is going to be over pretty quickly, but if the vote is 59-1 with 40 abstaining, the filibuster continues. The GOP doesn't have to be actively backing this guy - all they have to do is nothing.

And this comes from a guy who says he doesn't like earmarks.

Really, it didn't use to be this bad. Senate Republicans have sunk to new lows, starting on the day Obama was sworn in.

Seems the dems are impotent. Why is it they can't find a way to screw these bastards? Why can't all the nominees be put on the jobs as recess appointments or something? Dems were elected to get the job done ,,,so find a way to do it already and stop making excuses.

Sen. Shelby hates America.

Are they fast asleep? Not exactly. Graham and McCain voted against cloture to block at least one of Obama's judicial nominees.

Time to employ the nuclear option.

a terrorist state and take appropriate measures accordingly.
To get republican cooperation start arresting republican senators for extortion.

(I re-posted this from my reply to kpete's thread on the same subject at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7645379 )

whatever happened to that rules maneuver the GOP was going to use back when it had the senate majority? Oh, that's right, the Democrats rolled over and waved their legs helplessly in the air, and it was deemed unnecessary.

Ya know, i don't seem to recall the Dems successfully filibustering anything, ever, especially any presidential appointments -- correct me if I'm wrong here. Seems like all the republicans need to do is whisper the f-word and they can have their way with a cherry on top.

It's about time. Dems in congress and Senate should show more spine.

not this time

It is apparent that the Republicans, being the party of "NO!!!" and not doing any research (or original thought for that matter) don't need all the government money for staffs and research. Just cut off their staff funding and move their offices to cubicles in the Capitol basement (hopefully near the water heater).

Give them back their staff and research funding if/when they are willing to be good little boys and girls.

They barbecued the Democrats when they threatened to filibuster the Right-Wing Nutcases from the Supreme Court, yet when the tables are turned, they shut down fucking everything without even blinking.

Where is the Democratic Leadership? Why are they letting them do this?

Reid should be fired, and somebody who will tell Shelby to sit down and shut the hell up should be appointed in his place. Sherrod Brown, maybe......

it's coming...the time when we're either going to fight back, or become nazi germany. which will it be?

:wtf:

we could get a 2'fer ... and it would make the Republican's look petty

and vote to break the holds?

If not...I think Shelby has handed us an issue we might be able to use to GAIN Senate seats.

If we play this right, we can make this the moment that the "oppose everything" strategy turns the country against the 'Pugs bigtime.

I don't believe Collins is going anywhere any time soon, especially judging by her putrid reply to the President's Weekly Address last week.

I know that some have placed holds on one or two bad 'Pug appointees, but I can't remember any senator from THIS party deciding that a Republican president had no right to appoint ANYBODY.

I do seem to recall the repugs throwing tantrums over the one or two the Dems did hold. "The President has the right to appoint whomever he wants", dotcha know. Funny how that only pertains to repug presidents, eh? Fucking hypocrites in so many ways.

All the Republicans, with Shelby at the top of the list, need to be publicly called out for their obstructionism. Let the voters know what their representatives in Washington are doing to this country. Next time we will vote the dirt bags out

The Confederate States of America.

Top 15 Senate Recipients of Funding From Missile Defense Contractors, 2001-2006

1 = $204,334 = Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense

Perhaps then, we'd put an end to these anti-democratic shenanigans.

This is blackmail, plain and simple. Arrest that Shelby and put him in the holding tank!

The repugs seem to run circles around him. Where's LBJ when you need him?

I bet Joe knows which defense contractor to favor. He can fix it!



Oh wait, it's a trick question. We must expand the budget to favor them equally. Northrop + Boeing = double good delicious. More tankers, hell throw in some tankers with laser beams while ya at it. (I hear if you make the laser beams in SC it is now illegal to point out it's stupid to put laser beams on tankers and they'll lock yer ass up). Surplus tankers? Can't have that. Build more fighter jets, and especially nuclear bombers to fight them Ruskies, er I mean terrorists.

Or is she ok cause she is already "acting" in the position that she was appointed to?

Despite the new civility rules, all I can say is that this gentleman is a flaming asshole.

There, I said it.

with our system which allows such an action....

...NO one person should have that much power.

That contract went to Alabama because they know how to throw Democratatic governors into prison down there. Feed those good piggies some pure GOP PORK!!!

L. Coyote Mar-01-08 11:32 AM
U.S. Air Force Selects Northrop Grumman to Provide the New KC-45A Aerial Refueling Tanker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2947419

LOBBYING DATABASE Top Spenders #9 Northrop Grumman = $101,390,474.00
opensecrets.org LOBBYING DATABASE Top Spenders #9 Northrop Grumman = $101,390,474
RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM: Top Contributor #3 = Northrop Grumman $74,250
JERRY LEWIS: Top Contributor #4 = Northrop Grumman $78,250

Sens. Shelby, Sessions, = TOP Senate Recipients of Funding From Missile Defense Contractors
.... THIS IS A POLITICAL COUP! to send big bucks to Red states (for decades after the election)!

opensecrets.org NORTHROP GRUMMAN (Why does the connection reset when I try to go to opensecrets.org?)
Results: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp
62 records = Total for this search: $1,306,100.00

5/9/2001 $100,000 2001 President's Dinner/Non-Fed Trust
12/4/2001 $75,000 NRSC/Non-Federal
10/17/2002 $75,000 NRSC/Non-Federal
5/31/2002 $100,000 2002 President's Dinner/Non-Fed Trust
6/12/2002 $80,000 2002 President's Dinner/Non-Fed Trust
6/25/2002 $100,000 2002 President's Dinner/Non-Fed Trust
...

--------
2006 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $16,729,865

NORTHROP GRUMMAN
Client Summary, 2007 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $5,708,100
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers = $240,000 (AT&T, Verizon Lobbyist)
Tucker, Patrick = $120,000
Carter Consulting = $110,000

Client Summary, 2006 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $16,729,865
Campbell, John G = $196,995
Carter Consulting = $120,000
O'Toole, Diane = $120,000
Robison International = $120,000
McBee Strategic Consulting = $120,000
Jackson, Alvin G = $100,000

Client Summary, 2005 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $13,660,000
Pillsbury, Winthrop et al = $220,000
Campbell, John G = $200,000
Tucker, Patrick = $180,000
Wight, Bill = $120,000
O'Toole, Diane = $120,000

Client Summary, 2004 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $12,566,000
Client Summary, 2003 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $10,410,936
Client Summary, 2002 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $11,770,618
Client Summary, 2001 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $12,508,129

========================
Donor name: Campbell, John G
Results: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp
170 records Total for this search: $156,690
3/14/1995 $10,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
3/19/1996 $10,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
2/12/1997 $10,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
$5,000 Searchlight Leadership Fund
$5,000 Northern Lights PAC
Help America's Leaders
Virginia Leadership PAC
Cmte for a Democratic Majority
Fund for a Conservative Future
Grassroots Victory Fund
Defend America PAC
Hatch, Orrin
Sessions, Jeff
Shelby, Richard C
Riley, Bob
Burns, Conrad
Bush, George W
Stevens, Ted
American Osteopathic Assn
.....

-----------------
RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM: Top Contributors #3 = Northrop Grumman $74,250
CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)
Top Contributors http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp

1 Carlyle Group $78,040
2 Lockheed Martin $75,219
3 Northrop Grumman $74,250
4 General Dynamics $69,575
5 Cubic Corp $68,897
6 General Atomics $63,050
14 Titan Corp $42,250
.......

----------------
JERRY LEWIS: Top Contributors #4 = Northrop Grumman $78,250

JERRY LEWIS: CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)
Top Contributors http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp ?

1 General Atomics $87,500
2 United Parcel Service $82,750
3 National Assn of Realtors $82,250
4 Northrop Grumman $78,250
5 Lockheed Martin $76,750
6 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $76,000
7 General Dynamics $63,749
8 National Assn of Home Builders $62,000
9 Boeing Co $57,000
10 AT&T Inc $54,900
11 SAIC Inc $54,250
12 United Technologies $54,000
13 American Medical Assn $52,500
14 PMA Group $51,199
15 L-3 Communications $46,500
16 Raytheon Co $45,500

......
Sens. Shelby, Sessions, = TOP Senate Recipients of Funding From Missile Defense Contractors
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/web_ap...
Top 15 Senate Recipients of Funding From Missile Defense Contractors, 2001-2006

1 = $204,334 = Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense
.. Sparta, Collazo/Colsa, Boeing, Computer Sciences Corp., Teledyne, Miltec, CSC, Northrop Grumman, SAIC, Digital Fusion, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon

2 = $145,250 = Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Member, Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland Forces, Chairman, Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Member, Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
.. Collazo/Colsa, Dynetics, TRW, Orbital Sciences, Lockheed Martin, Teledyne, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Sparta, Boeing, SAIC

3 = $120,750 = Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense

FROM: REPORTS
Tangled Web 2005: A Profile of the Missile Defense and Space Weapons Lobbies by William D. Hartung with Frida Berrigan, Michelle Ciarrocca, and Jonathan Wingo
Appendices

-----------------
opensecrets.org LOBBYING DATABASE Top Spenders #9 Northrop Grumman = $101,390,474
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/firmsum.asp
LOBBYING DATABASE:
Top Spenders, 1998-2007

#1 = US Chamber of Commerce $357,384,680
#2 = General Electric $153,210,000

#9 = Northrop Grumman $101,390,474

----------------
Air Force explaining tanker decision to Boeing tomorrow
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_air_force_tankers.html

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force will brief Boeing tomorrow ...

Congressman Norm Dicks accuses the Air Force of "bait and switch" ...

The Air Force says the Airbus-Northrop Grumman plane is the better all-around performer. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stands behind the decision.

The head of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems unit, Jim Albaugh, says Boeing offered its 767 because the company thought that plane offered the size and flexibility the Air Force wanted. He says Boeing was discouraged from offering a tanker based on the larger 777.

But he says Boeing will protest the decision only if it thinks there was an "irregularity" in the proposal phase.

....

----------------
Northrop Grumman Selected for First Phase of DARPA F6 Next-Generation Wireless Satellite Network
Source: Northrop Grumman Corp. - http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=137667

REDONDO BEACH, Calif., March 5, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has been awarded the first phase of a four phase advanced research contract to design and build a cluster of wirelessly interconnected free flying spacecraft.

Awarded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Phase 1 of the Future, Flexible, Fast, Fractionated, Free-Flying, Spacecraft united by Information Exchange (F6) program is a 12-month study of ways to break up a typical monolithic satellite into distributed modules. In Phase 1, Northrop Grumman will develop a satellite-to-satellite wireless network, a distributed command and control system, and network protocols.

Rather than being assembled onto a monolithic bus satellite, components of the F6 are distributed onto separate spacecraft modules. By the end of the first phase, Northrop Grumman will demonstrate essential networking and communications capabilities, will present a preliminary design and will prove the business case for this strategy. An actual flight demonstration composed of multiple satellites will be developed in subsequent phases.

The functionality of a traditional satellite will be reconstituted by a cluster of wirelessly interconnected spacecraft modules that fly in approximately the same orbit while flying freely in space. In this distributed virtual satellite system ........

------------------
Northrop Grumman wins $239M air force weather agency contract
March 03, 2008: 03:53 PM EST - http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-23491833.htm

SAN FRANCISCO, Mar. 3, 2008 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) -- Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) Corp. said Monday it has been awarded the U.S. Air Force weather agency systems engineering, management and sustainment (SEMS) II contract, valued at $239 million.

The contract includes a one-year base and four option years.

The SEMS II program provides system support for the Air Force Weather Agency, the largest supplier of weather data for military users worldwide in support of frontline combat operations, mission planning, and routine flight operations, Los Angeles-based Northrop said.

Shares of Northrop rose 4.7% to $82.30. ..............

or Ben Nelson et al, you show that you will reward a lawmaker
even when he's the biggest ass in Congress.

I mentioned this to my 'conservative' (aka easily duped) brother and he said it is the same thing Obama did when he was a senator. Is that true? Or just some lame talking point he's regurgitating from Rush or FOX? I'd like to be able to counter this so any information would be greatly appreciated!

a process which would clog up the Senate floor schedule and prohibit the Senate from pursuing other legislative priorities like a job-creation bill."

From the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100205-714358.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesEurope