Talk:110th United States Congress

message: Mark R. Warner, Senator from Virginia, is a Democrat, not a Republican as was noted.
2600:1003:B003:F396:9503:156B:4825:EFE2 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark R. Warner

message: Lieberman is officially an "ID" in the US Senate.  Simon12 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lieberman, an independent, is listed as an "ID."  It does not change that he is an independent where party affiliation is concerned.  If you're speaking of "Party Affiliation" in his article (or elsewhere), ID is not appropriate.  It's simply his pet name for his independent status, not a party affiliation. 66.211.32.50 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Senate lists his Party Affiliation as "Independent Democrat". I believe that's how Wikipedia should refer to his party going forward. You disagree. I'd like to see what others think so we can reach a consensus. Simon12 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Secretary of the Senate is the official charged with recognizing Senators' partisan affiliation.  To deviate from this official list seems, simply, revisionist. Qqqqqq 09:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So you now seem, simply revisionist.  Or will you admit that your previous rhetoric was over the top? 66.211.32.50 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I followed your link just a few minutes before the timestamp on this message, and Lieberman is listed as "I", not "ID".  Have they changed his page already?  --Heath 24.53.130.213 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha.  Let it be noted that this same dispute is apparently going on at the .gov sources, too.  For now, the .gov sources (including the one you linked) all list Lieberman as "(I-CT)." 66.211.32.50 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  Whatever the Senate website lists him as should, obviously, be what Wikipedia goes with as well. Qqqqqq 08:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman officially an ID 

message: I have requested from senate.gov the OFFICIAL listing for Joe Lieberman. One web site (a PDF dated 1/3) says it is I-CT and another web site (an dynamic page) says it is ID-CT. Let's wait for the response. user:mnw2000 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's Joe Lieberman (Independant Democrat). GoodDay 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The final word on Lieberman 

message: This article needs some revision, due to the death of Represenative Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia), on Feb 13 ,2007. GoodDay 19:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Charlie Norwood]]

message: Roland Burris was appointed on December 31, 2008.  The Senate refused to seat him on January 6, 2009.  The Senate agreed to seat him on January 12, 2009.  He was sworn-in on January 15, 2009.
My question: was he a member of the 110th Congress?—Markles 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the $25,000 question isn't it. The 110th didn't adjourn sine die until January 3, so he could be. Burris claims he's been a senator since December. However, his official bioguide at http://bioguide.congress.gov indicates his service starting in 2009, being appointed December 30, 2008. So he probably isn't part of the 110th Congress. Appointments only go into affect on the day they are issued if Congress is adjourned sine die (Riddicks) a la Roger Wicker. We will have to see official word from the Secretary of the Senate on just when his senority starts. It all depends on whether he's Senator number 1898 (before Mark Udall), Senator 1904 (before Kay Hagan), or Senator 1907 (before Ted Kaufman). The fact that the Senate refused to seat him that may have some bearing on the issue as well, but there wasn't a formal vote in the Senate or other official denial other than the Secreatary of the Senate saying his "creditials weren't in order." It could be something for Senate historians and parliamentarians to decide, rather than Wikipedia editors.DCmacnut<> 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roland Burris 

message: Most sources seem to indicate that the new Congress will start on January 3, 2007, but this release from Pelosi's office clearly says Congress will start on January 4, 2007. Does anyone have a source that is clearly definitive? Simon12 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The House has adopted H.J. Res. 101, which provides "[t]hat the first regular session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress shall begin at noon on Thursday, January 4, 2007." It's pending in the Senate and since the leadership consults on these things, I assume it will be adopted, but it hasn't been yet. Newyorkbrad 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Once it gets passed, we can update the article.Simon12 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Senate passed the bill today. Simon12 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was watching C-SPAN 2 last night, and the Senators said the new Congress will begin on the 4th. Valadius 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think that the 110th Congress starts when it first meets - it probably needs to be gaveled into existence or something. The Jan 3 date is not "written in stone", it's "written in the consititution", which also says it can be changed by law. If the law is passed, then the 110th would start on Jan 4, which actually probably means that the 109th continues until Jan 4, not Jan 3.Simon12 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the below comments on end date.Simon12 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. The 20th amendment states that the terms of senators and representatives (and that Congress) ends at noon on January 3 in odd numbered years. Congress cannot alter those end dates, though they are permitted to establish a different start date by law if they choose. Traditionally, the date a congress adjourns "sine die" determines the technical end of a congressional session, since they rarely reconvene after that date, even though officially Congresses run until January 3.Dcmacnut 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a matter of the date that was selected. The 109th Congress started January 4, 2005, so they likely just kept that date. The 108th started on Jaunary 7, 2003; the 107th on Jan. 3, 2001; 106th on Jan. 6, 1999; 105th on January 7, 1997, and 104th on Jan. 4, 1995. It's a matter or picking the most practical start date after January 3. Source is from a CRS report on first day proceedings in the Senate. If you look at the recent congresses, the start date has been during the first full week of January, either on a Monday or a Wednesday (the Thursday start date of the 110th being the exception). There's no hard fast rule over what day they pick, though accomodating the holiday travels of members is usually a key consideration.Dcmacnut 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening day: Jan 3rd or 4th 

message: Shouldn't the article state that the 110th Congress runs from January 3, 2007 to January 3, 2009, even though the Congress will not meet in its first session until January 4, 2007?—Markles 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the 110th Congress starts when it first meets - it probably needs to be gaveled into existence or something. The Jan 3 date is not "written in stone", it's "written in the consititution", which also says it can be changed by law. If the law is passed, then the 110th would start on Jan 4, which actually probably means that the 109th continues until Jan 4, not Jan 3.Simon12 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the below comments on end date.Simon12 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. The 20th amendment states that the terms of senators and representatives (and that Congress) ends at noon on January 3 in odd numbered years. Congress cannot alter those end dates, though they are permitted to establish a different start date by law if they choose. Traditionally, the date a congress adjourns "sine die" determines the technical end of a congressional session, since they rarely reconvene after that date, even though officially Congresses run until January 3.Dcmacnut 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning of Congress

message: Beyond the when is the why.  Why start on the 4th, and not the 3rd?  I'd understand if the 3rd was a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.  I presume that Members could travel on the 2nd and still make it on time.  Anyone have a source on why the 110th Congress would start on the 4th?—Markles 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a matter of the date that was selected. The 109th Congress started January 4, 2005, so they likely just kept that date. The 108th started on Jaunary 7, 2003; the 107th on Jan. 3, 2001; 106th on Jan. 6, 1999; 105th on January 7, 1997, and 104th on Jan. 4, 1995. It's a matter or picking the most practical start date after January 3. Source is from a CRS report on first day proceedings in the Senate. If you look at the recent congresses, the start date has been during the first full week of January, either on a Monday or a Wednesday (the Thursday start date of the 110th being the exception). There's no hard fast rule over what day they pick, though accomodating the holiday travels of members is usually a key consideration.Dcmacnut 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the 4th

message: I threw together a table summarizing all of the changes in membership between the 109th and the 110th at User:Wknight94/2006 Election Changes.  Does anyone think this would be useful in this article?  I see it's not standard and I know there are a lot of folks doing a great job keeping things uniform for the articles of this type... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does look very useful, although perhaps it belongs either as a separate article or as part of the 2006 election article. A minor quibble - the party color row seems wider than it should be. GabrielF 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, now I see some of these articles need to be split up and reorganized, etc.  (Maybe not this article but others for sure).  I'll investigate that avenue first.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of changes  

message: Is there any particular reason to move the senate committee tables to Talk:List of United States Senate committees? I know they take up a lot of space here, but they are useful and there's no reason to bury them in a talk page until January. GabrielF 05:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate committee list move 

message: It'd be nice if year elected could be added. Both for reps and senators. Jack Daw 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year elected 

message: Connecticut is the wrong color on the House percentages images.  I'd fix it, but I don't have software that saves out png images.  Thanks, MarcusGraly 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not 2 Republicans from CT, nor are there two Democrats. Lieberman is now technically an Independent. JnB987 05:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment refers to Connecticut's House delegation, which is now 4D-1R.  But now that you mention CT's Senators, the Senate website now lists Lieberman as an "ID" or Independent Democrat. Qqqqqq 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Map Wrong 

message: Unless we're counting the VP, which we shouldn't be, there should only be 100 senators.  I see 101 on the first chart, but I can't change it since I don't know which party would be getting the cut (Republicans, if they truly lost the Senate.)  -01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 49D + 49R + 2I = 100 Senators.  Is that the chart you mean? Qqqqqq 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  101 Senators, now? 

message: I'd like to import the wikitable someone created  for the List of current members of the United States House of Representatives and import it to the Congressional roster of the 110th Congress. The graphics I think make for a better read, although it does extend out the article a bit more.  The other option is to link the table from a seperate article to the 110th.  I'd also like to create the same wikitable for the U.S. Senators over the next few weeks. It does address the comment above about years in office, as well as adding a bit more info.  Any strong thoughts either way.  No comments I'd interpret as to go forward............ Pmeleski 12:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table from Current List of House members was originally on this page, but moved out since it didn't fit with the standard wikipedia template for Ordinal congresses (Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Ordinal_congresses). I would suggest leaving them as separate pages. The year in office info is available on that other page if people want it. This page should proabably as a general summary of the 110th Congress, and not a comprehensive listing of all facts and figures.Dcmacnut 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making a sortable list now at User:Just H/110th Congressional Table. Just H 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All looks OK to me now.  The current US Rep list that has been reformatted looks much better and easier to follow. ........Oh, any chance the US Senate delegatons table for the 110th can be seperated by state?  I think it would be easier to follow, but I'm OK if it is left as is..........Just offering a suggestion.Pmeleski 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Import Wikitable from US House Current Members

message: at the start of the article it mentions notable senators (first muslim, first budhists etc..) perhaps bernie sanders should be listed here as the first (self-described) socialist to serve in the US senate. what do you think?
Sure3thought 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notable senators

message: Do we need to remind the casual reader that GOP (diagram near top) refers to the Republicans?3thought 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to, for the unfamilliar readers. GoodDay 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, if I hadn't I "compressed" the name it wouldn't have fit in the graph. Habbit 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GOP

message: Isn't Republican Pedro Agulto Tenorio a non-voting member of Congress? Or is he still working on his recognition? LILVOKA 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Northern Mariana Islands elects a "Resident Representative to the United States" (see, Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Art. V), but as of yet, this official has not been granted the right to sit in the House of Representatives as have the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the territorial delegates. Proposals to create the position of Delegate or Resident Commissioner from the Northern Mariana Islands have been under consideration but have not been enacted as of this time. See Delegate (United States Congress) and footnote to List of U.S. states by population. Newyorkbrad 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't The Northern Mariana Islands now have a Resident Commissioner (from CMMI)

message: I don't understand what is behind the recent removal of many citations.  Nothing should be assumed to be "common knowledge".  Contributers obviously put in considerable effort to cite sources for facts as they were added, which produces a valuable encyclopedic resource.  They shouldn't be indiscriminately deleted.  --Appraiser 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK.  I think many of the facts can get by with a non-specific citation.  I'm accustomed to the "negotiations" that have taken place regarding the Keith Ellison (politician) article.  Talk about citations!  Basically, every single statement added needs a source or it will get deleted by one of many passionate editors.  I've had educators tell me that Wikipedia is worthless because of the absence of verified information.  I respond by explaining that all facts are supposed to be cited with reliable sources.  (Of course that statement is an unrealized goal.)  I'll add a few s in this article where I believe we should have specific sources.  Hopefully they won't be hard to find. --Appraiser 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of citations

message: I'm not sure we should list Water Resources Development Act of 2007 as "Veto Overridden".  On this page (110th Congress) we don't really need to say the legislative history of an Act, do we.  Isn't it enough to say that it was enacted and let the reader read the Act's article to learn more.  I know we list other vetoed bills under pending/failed, but I really feel strongly that I don't want this article (110th congress) to get too bulky with detailed information that could be learned elsewhere.  —Markles 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree since his veto's are so rare and since the overridden veto's even more rare I think its important especially looking back on this congress Gang14 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enacted

message: Just a comment or question on the section on "pending legislation." How are we to decide what is included in this list. Several of the bills, while important, may not qualify as "key" issues to some people, and may provide an incomplete picture of legislation introduced or pending in the House and Senate. As the 110th Congress proceeds, there will be many more bills introduced, and the list could get quite lengthy without some sort of vetting process.
May I suggest that we use the Senate's Active legislation list as an intitial guide. Other bills could be still be added, but perhaps just with people and other articles some test of "notability" be applied. Barbara Boxer's  dealing with perchlorate contamination in drinking water is listed, but she has also introduced  dealing with the same subject and accomplishing much of the same goals. Which one is worthy of inclusion? There are at least six different bills related to global warming that have been introduced, more than 60 dealing with renewable energy. A "notability test" would ensure bills that are either getting at least some or extensive coverage in the news or blogosphere are included, while leaving out bills like  a bill to "designate the United States Postal Service located at 152 North 5th Street in Laramie, Wyoming, as the 'Gale W. McGee Post Office'. That bill has meaning to someone, but probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
I'm open to any suggestions or we can simply leave the list as is an have editors add bills they feel are noteworthy.Dcmacnut 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any to add, but I think Rangel's Universal Service Bill should be dropped from the list. I'm not aware of a single commitee hearing on it either in this term or in any of the last several terms in which he's introduced a similar bill. I think proposed legislation should at the very least have passed a commitee in the House or Senate to be considered on this list. Jon 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we need a better standard on what to include under pending. I like the idea of using committee consideration as a standard. However, Rangel's Unversal Service Bill may be an exception. It will never get serious consideration by any committee, because it deals with reinstating the military draft. However, I would offer that it is major legislation worth including because it has received a lot of coverage in the media and is tied to the larger debate over the war in Iraq.Dcmacnut 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The very lack of serious consideration by a commitee makes it no different than hundreds of other bills that get introduced and refered to commitee and die at the end of each congress due to lack of support by leadership and the reavlent committee(s). Even without a link here, articles dealing with military draft in the US would still link to that article. Commitee support is key, with it, a proposed bill can and often is attached to another bill. Jon 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Two additional bills insufficently advanced to be included. The bills Barack introduced linked here have not cleared a commitee a comitee in either the house or senate. (DPVIPA and Iraq-DEA). At the moment these bills are just like several hundred other bills this section introduced and refered to commitee. With several current US Senators running for President we don't want to cluter up of the pending legislation section with every single bill they introduce. Jon 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With the recent increase in articles to the list, I've cut the red links. The list is definately long enough now and it's now August so there have been plenty of time for a noteworthy sugested article to have been created by now. In fact, going thru the list, it looks to me like about five the current blue links should be cut here because they appear unlikely to ever get serious consideration. Jon 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending legislation

message: In the section on legislation, shouldn't it be made more clear what bills have failed and what bills are pending? After all, there's quite a difference between failed and pending. For pending, it would be interesting to know why a bill is pending, which may be for numerous reasons. Jack Daw 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the linked articles have passed the House and have been refered to the Senate committee(s) that deal with legislation in that proposed area. As I recall, the house senate compromise on the Minimum Wage bill was incorporated into the vetoed suplemential apporation. I don't know if the new version of the suplemential being drafted will include this or if instead another vechicle will be found for it. Jon 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add note? 

message: I'm thinking that by the October - November timeframe there are going to be a lot of them. Jon 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had brought this up before and I believe there should be a seperate section atleast when he hits 5. Gang14 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like a mini section Gang14 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed with Markles & Gang14. Jon 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the vetoed legislation be moved into its own category?

message: What ever happened to it I personally think especially with this president this is important seeing as he has had 2 vetos so far Gang14 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree I think that because of how rare his vetos are that it is very note worthy Gang14 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alright.  Put it in.—Markles 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Update: I've added it.—Markles 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Gang14 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veto? 

message: Should we or shouldn't we? Gang14 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pocket Veto?

message: Is there a way to have a generic link so it doesn't have to be updated every month?—Markles 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resume of Congressional Activity

message: Specifically, in the second paragraph, the first version was indeed vetoed in large part for the reason mentioned. And an entirely new paragraph needs adds since the second version (without the timetable) was passed late last week and signed. Any other major differences between the two bills should also be mentioned as well. Jon 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War section needs updated to present

message: I'm considering nominating this article for "Featured" status, but I don't know if it should be counted as a "Featured Article" or "Featured List."  Or do you think this really isn't good enough for featured status?  Your suggestions?—Markles 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly I think it just needs the "failed or pending list" trimed down a bit. One example of something to remove for not being newsworthy is The HHS approat. bill. There's an HHS bill introduced every year, if it doesn't get approved on it's own merits (often the case) it ends up being wrapped into the omnibus spending bill. One example of something to remove for no chance of ever getting any serious attention by this Congress is Rangel's bill to reintroduce the draft. He does this every session, it gets refered to the approative commitee and dies a quiet death, in most years without a hearing on the subject. Jon 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you did end your first sentence with "Your sugestions?" Will trim the list down on the article. Jon 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, you wanted that over in another subpage specially about nominations for featured status or article, I just now became aware of. Jon 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for "Featured" status 

message: I've restored this sentence. I don't think this fact is POV as the Republicans are actually proud of this, naturally, and the tactic was the topic of an entire NYT article. -- Kendrick7talk 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seems to be a general theme and describes the nature of the political maneuvering which is particular to this congress, e.g.  "Coming on the last day of the first session of the 110th Congress, the failure to offset the cost of the tax measure was simply the latest example of how difficult it has been for the Democratic leadership to get what it wants in the 'first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years,' says the Washington Post in its lead story." -- Kendrick7talk 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the articles on the last several Republican Congresses mentioning the Senate Democratic blocking of Republican legislation? It seems to me that the most important thing be that the articles are consistent about this. I would also lean towards not including such langague in any of the articles about sessions of congress because the minority party so often filibusters legislation predominately supported by the majority. Jon (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate Republicans blocking of Democratic leglistation 

message: I've seen various dubious sources assert that this congress has set a record so far so filibusters. Might be worthy of mention if true. -- Kendrick7talk 09:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current source in the article appears to be another dubious source. That article's title alone is heavily biased. And the domain name of it looks more like how a blog would be named instead of a newspaper. Jon (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filibuster record? 

message: Another news tidbit -- this congress had what's being called the shortest Senate session ever at 11 seconds for the sole purpose of preventing a Presidential recess appointment. Don't have a ref handy. -- Kendrick7talk 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 second long session 

message: === Served non-continuous terms ===
Yesterday, one editor added Ron Paul to the list of members who 110th United States Congress#Served non-continuous terms.  Another editor then removed Paul, stating in the Edit Summary that "we already discussed this and its only for those who restarted their terms in this congress."
*Question 1: When/where did we discuss this?—Markles 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Markles either you have the worst memory ever or someone used you name because you and i were the one who discussed this and you were the one who removed it all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=110th_United_States_Congress&diff=prev&oldid=160549283 and I put the ones that occured in this congress that was how we discussed it Gang14 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *The correct answer is A) the worst memory ever. In my defense, however, I wasn't saying I didn't remember it, I just wanted to refer back to the discussion so that we could revisit it here.  So here it is, from my edit summary of 2007-09-26: I "removed entire section because none of these events occured during this Congress."  Nonetheless, I now think we need some consensus on the topic.  The old code was:
===Served non-continuous terms===
====Senate====
* Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): 1983–2001, 2003–
====House of Representatives====
* Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): 1986–1987, 1991–
* Brian Bilbray (R-CA): 1995–2001, June 2006–
* Jim Cooper (D-TN): 1983–1995, 2003–
* Jane Harman (D-CA): 1993–1999, 2001–
* Baron Hill (D-IN): 1999–2005, 2007–
* Bob Inglis (R-SC): 1993–1999, 2005–
* Jay Inslee (D-WA): 1993–1995, 1999–
* Nick Lampson (D-TX): 1997–2005, 2007–
* Dan Lungren (R-CA): 1979–1989, 2005–
* Ron Paul (R-TX): 1976–1977, 1979–1985, 1997–
* David Price (D-NC): 1987–1995, 1997–
* Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX): 1997–2005, 2007–
—Markles 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fine with me. The list of those who'd served non-consecutive terms was woefully incomplete (and therefore inaccurate), and it's not all that relevant outside a specific discussion of seniority, anyway. JTRH (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI... that info is more or less available at List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous facts sections 

message: Yesterday, one editor added Ron Paul to the list of members who 110th United States Congress#Served non-continuous terms.  Another editor then removed Paul, stating in the Edit Summary that "we already discussed this and its only for those who restarted their terms in this congress."
*Question 1: When/where did we discuss this?—Markles 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Markles either you have the worst memory ever or someone used you name because you and i were the one who discussed this and you were the one who removed it all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=110th_United_States_Congress&diff=prev&oldid=160549283 and I put the ones that occured in this congress that was how we discussed it Gang14 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *The correct answer is A) the worst memory ever. In my defense, however, I wasn't saying I didn't remember it, I just wanted to refer back to the discussion so that we could revisit it here.  So here it is, from my edit summary of 2007-09-26: I "removed entire section because none of these events occured during this Congress."  Nonetheless, I now think we need some consensus on the topic.  The old code was:
===Served non-continuous terms===
====Senate====
* Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): 1983–2001, 2003–
====House of Representatives====
* Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): 1986–1987, 1991–
* Brian Bilbray (R-CA): 1995–2001, June 2006–
* Jim Cooper (D-TN): 1983–1995, 2003–
* Jane Harman (D-CA): 1993–1999, 2001–
* Baron Hill (D-IN): 1999–2005, 2007–
* Bob Inglis (R-SC): 1993–1999, 2005–
* Jay Inslee (D-WA): 1993–1995, 1999–
* Nick Lampson (D-TX): 1997–2005, 2007–
* Dan Lungren (R-CA): 1979–1989, 2005–
* Ron Paul (R-TX): 1976–1977, 1979–1985, 1997–
* David Price (D-NC): 1987–1995, 1997–
* Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX): 1997–2005, 2007–
—Markles 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Served non-continuous terms 

message: I deleted the miscellaneous facts sections from the 110th Congress & 109th Congress.  It's been bothering me for months.  Then I found Wikipedia:Trivia section.—Markles 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. The list of those who'd served non-consecutive terms was woefully incomplete (and therefore inaccurate), and it's not all that relevant outside a specific discussion of seniority, anyway. JTRH (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI... that info is more or less available at List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove sections altogether 

message: Whichever bills in this that are still active need to have the title of their years changed from "2007" to "2008" while the ones already effectively dead should retain the "2007" year. I'm not sure which ones of these still have a reasonable shot at passing and which don't and in any case don't have a reliable source on hand about the status of these bills. Jon (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Years in the bill titles in the pending and failed sections

message: The list of members lists dates on which those who won special elections in the current Congress were "installed." That's not the term used in the United States - it should be "sworn in" or "took office." This appears to be done by an automatic template of some kind - is there any way to fix that? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite hilarious, indeed. I wonder whether politicians can be uninstalled through the "Add and remove programs" wizard :D Habbit (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No term is necessary at all on the listing section... they simply need to say Month "DD, YYYY - Present" as they do now. As for the descriptive paragraphs... it's simply semantics... installed is just as good as sworn in.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If one term is commonly used in the US, and the other isn't, then it's not just semantics. It's a matter of accuracy. JTRH (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does. The person becomes a voting member of Congress when he or she takes the oath of office. JTRH (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that specific to congress? I mean, a president doesn't have to be sworn in to be president... --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article VI of the Constitution: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. Swearing in = taking the oath of office. Legally, you're not recognized as occupying the office until you've been sworn in. Even though, for example, LBJ actually became President the instant JFK died, he took the oath of office as soon as possible thereafter, and before he did anything as simple as giving the order for Air Force One to leave dallas. JTRH (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The Clerk of the House  calls you a "representative-elect" until you take the oath, and that date is considered the start of your service by the House itself. I'm not sure why the Bioguide (published, as far as I know, by the Library of Congress) lists it as the day of the election. In any case, I was raising a concern about the terminology rather than debating the start of service. "Installed" is simply not the recognized term. JTRH (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As most of you know, I sent an e-mail info.clerkweb@mail.house.gov about this...I'll let you know what they say.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Installed"?

message: The Congress currently has an approval rate hovering around 15%-20%. There is a wide range of criticism for the Congress, probably enough to fill a section. Currently the words "criticism" and "approval rate" do not appear in the article. Anyone agree? US471776 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simple fact-based article about a specific session of Congress listing members, states, and party affiliations. Any criticisms, such as approval ratings, or other information about Congress in general would be more appropriate at the United States Congress article.Dcmacnut (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta say I disagree. It is a fact that this specific session of Congress has a very low approval rating. This is not true of the idea of the Congress; it is related specifically to the current 110th Congress. Here's a reference if you want one (not sure if it would be usable, but it makes the point) . US471776 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of specific congresses have had low approval ratings in the past. Several have had high approval ratings. None of the US Congress articles list praises or criticism. 55th United States Congress does not include criticisms or approval ratings. This is an historical list of the specifics about how the 110th Congress was formulated and its legislative actions, not a regular article. For example, it lists legislation considered by Congress, but any discussion of how Congress debated that legislation is posted on the legislation's page, not here. Polls and approval ratings also fluctuate throughout a congressional term, so how would you decide which numbers or which polls to use? There is also a History of the United States Congress article, which could be appropriate to discuss congressional approval ratings over time, including the current Congress. Also, as a listing of facts, the article is neutral. To add a "criticism" section, you'd have to also balance that with other viewpoints to continue meeting WP:NPOV, which could make the article unwieldy from the article in my opinion. If you really feel that strongly about it, I suggest you post your idea at Wikiproject U.S. Congress and see what other project particpants think.Dcmacnut (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with inclusion IF AND ONLY IF it can be listed as NPOV. Perhaps a section on "approval ratings" could be added.  It's fine to include this information if it's intended to be included extensively across many Congresses (even if it's not executed thusly).  —Markles 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Why isn't there a section or an article about the protest going on? That seems pretty important.  Argo117 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOP House protest 

message: Obama resigning his Senate seat made it 50-49 for the Democrats (counting Sanders and Lieberman). If Biden resigns his seat before January 3, the composition becomes 49-49, and since the Republicans still have the Presidency and Cheney is the tie-breaking vote, does that mean that (briefly) the GOP becomes the majority party in the Senate once again until the 111th Congress is sworn in? CrazyC83 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. For a change in majority to occur, the full Senate would need to pass a new organizing resolution establishing Republicans as committee chairs. That resolution would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster, and it is unlikely that Democrats would support such a move. When the majority flipped from Republican to Democratic in 2001 the original organizing resolution that addressed GOP control in a 50-50 Senate had a provision nullifying the resolution and requiring a new one be approved if either party gained an outright 51-49 majority. The resolution for the 110th Congress contained no such provision. I highly doubt this would become an issue, though, since the 110th Congress is likely to adjourned sine die before December 31, officially ending the 110th Congress. Even if Biden resigned prior to his current term expiring on January 3, there would be no Congressional session in place for the majority to switch. My guess is Biden will resign on or after January 6 at the start of the 111th Congress.DCmacnut<> 17:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Biden was reelected to the Senate, the assumption is that he would not resign before Jan 6, since he would just have to resign again on Jan 6. But there are a number of media reports saying he will resign shortly, and there's really no reason why he couldn't resign now, and then resign again on Jan 6. Simon12 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: A concurring precedent: in November 2002, the Republicans re-obtained a majority (50), but did not get majority party control. --128.97.245.125 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible change?

message: Well, I think it's a well known fact that this Congress has the lowest approval ratings of any Congress in the history of the United States, but it says this nowhere in the article. I think it deserves mention.
98.215.34.127 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing to do would to find reliable external sources backing up this claim. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's a very important piece of information for this article. I'll see if I can dig something up. Fdssdf (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to continue the debate, there are numerous article which include polling data as sources, including almost every article regarding a congressional race. I see no harm if it is from a reputable news source and VERY well cited. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval Ratings? 

message: Markles edited the article to claim that Rep. Tom Davis's (R-VA) seat "will remain vacant until the next Congress". I don't think this is an appropriate statement. While the current Congress is out of session, special elections have happened while Congress has adjourned in the past. Here are two examples. In 2002 Patsy Mink died during the 2002 election. In Nov 02 a special election for the short term was held (see the NY Times for details). Congress was out of session during this time. A week ago a special election was held in Ohio after the death of Stephanie Tubbs-Jones; (see CQPolitics for details) as the Hawaii example, Congress is out of session. Due to these examples, I don't we can say a special election won't be held. VA state law states that 30 days has to pass before a special election is held; see WaPo. This means that the latest day an election could be held is Dec. 24. While I personally doubt an election will be held, we can't say for sure until someone else does. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Its OK; I made the change after I posted my message. I checked the VA Governor's website and found the only special election called was for seats in House of Delegates, not Congress. Majority Leader Hoyer has said the lame duck session could go into December; see MarketWatch. This could mean a special election could be held, but I doubt it due to the window being too short. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA-11's vacancy  

message: I'm the editor who put the images above the section heading.  Then they hang down but don't break up the columns. In some cases, the images had been overlapping/covering text in the right column.  So I moved them up a bit.  It didn't seem like such a problem, but if the MOS is strict about images being in the precise section, then we'd need a workaround.—Markles 23:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image location 

message: I added before and after data in the party summary sections.  What do you think?—Markles 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before & After 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external links were found to be unavailable. Please check if the links are in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/04/congress.rdp/index.html
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:11:48, 404 Not Found
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-06-01 02:06:47, 404 Not Found
* http://ruthholladay.com/index.php?blog=1&title=andre_carson_on_identity_and_belief&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:11:49, 404 Not Found
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-06-01 02:06:59, 404 Not Found
* http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/08/welcome.htm#3
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:12:07, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-06-01 02:07:10, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
* http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=ec058dc49ba86eafad5319127b1f4bc7
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:11:50, 404 Not Found
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-06-01 02:07:36, 404 Not Found
* http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=file-404
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:11:51, 404 Not Found
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-06-01 02:07:44, 404 Not Found
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcb_washington/20081229/pl_mcb_washington/washington200812obamawhcosannouncesplanstoresignhouseseathtml
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:11:49, 404 Not Found
** In 110th United States Congress on 2011-06-01 02:07:53, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I propose that Special elections to the 110th United States Congress be merged into 110th United States Congress. The information in the former article essentially duplicates that in the latter. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106022356/http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/04/congress.rdp/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/04/congress.rdp/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430044530/http://ruthholladay.com/index.php?blog=1&title=andre_carson_on_identity_and_belief&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 to http://ruthholladay.com/index.php?blog=1&title=andre_carson_on_identity_and_belief&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026213822/http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/08/welcome.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/08/welcome.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203024/http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/1020 to http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/1020
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227185804/http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Name=Lieberman to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Name=Lieberman
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002646810
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523152951/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/12/sources_wicker_to_be_barbours.html?hpid=news-col-blog to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/12/sources_wicker_to_be_barbours.html?hpid=news-col-blog
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806224839/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/110publ.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/110publ.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031061138/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=file-404 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=file-404
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified