Friday, November 17, 2006

Senate is on Recess Until December 4th


Today, the Senate returns to hibernation until December 4th, at which time they will have 15 or so more business days to pass ten spending bills, debate the Bolton nomination, talk about Iraq, etc.  Two weeks for Thanksgiving after the entire month of October and half of November off is ridiculous.  Even if the Senate is not passing legislation, its elected members should be in session debating the issues that face our country. The on-again/off-again schedule constructed by Majority Leader Frist is a disgrace.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

November 16, 2006: Nuclear Trade with India Passes


Nuclear Trade with India passes; Senate adjourns until December 4th; ten spending bills still must be addressed before the end of the year.

The Senate has passed a measure "[T]o exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India."  Opposition came in the form of five amendments, all rejected, which attempted, among other things, to prohibit the arrangment from fostering India's nuclear weapon program. An amendment conditioning nuclear trade with India on cessation of its military cooperation (e.g. training exercises) with Iran also failed.  That amendment, offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), got 38 votes, including some from several Republicans including Kyl and Santorum.  Feingold's amendment asked basically that the President make determinations that the nuclear trade not foster India's nuclear weapons program.  That got 25 votes, all from Dems.

Twelve senators voted against the final bill, largely because amendments they offered or supported were rejected. They are:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)

There you have it.  Nuclear trade with India is ratified by the Senate.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

November 15, 2006: Agricultural Appropriations Bill—Not!


The plan for today was to convene at 14:15 and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, the Senate was set to consider H.R.5384, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007.  This plan was announced yesterday on the floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), an appeasement to Sen Kent Conrad (ND).  Indeed, this is how the schedule appeared this morning on the Senate's website.

But that didn't happen.  What actually happened is that Sen. Maj. Leader Frist went gone back on his promise to have the Senate debate the farm spending bill today (and therein vote on Conrad's Farm Aid bill, which would help drought-stricken North Dakotan farmers among others).  But in a remarkable renege of his public pledge yesterday on the floor, Frist took consideration of the farm bill off of today's schedule.  In response, Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota took to the floor and announced their intention to block the Senate from moving on to any other business until the farm bill comes up for consideration.

As of 18:00, Conrad, has been on the floor all afternoon, sometimes allowing Dorgan to speak, or once allowing Senator Mike DeWine (outgoing, OH) to speak.  Conrad has stated just now that he might allow the Senate to adjourn for the evening but has renewed his pledge to object to any motion that would move the Senate on to any business other than the farm bill (or, in lieu of that, getting some agreement in which his amendment will be voted on).

I am not totally clear on how a Senator has the power to halt the entire Senate.  However, I saw Ron Wyden (OR) do it earlier this year.  From what I understand, it would take unanimous consent for the Senate to call up consideration of another bill—there is currently not a single bill pending before the Senate.  Conrad and Dorgan have basically said there will not be any unanimous consent because they will be on the floor and they will be objecting until their demands are met.  Normally, the price of objecting would discourage a Senator from taking such action, or normally there is not anyone on the floor and Majority leader Frist can make his unanimous consent requests unobstructed and go about setting the schedule.  Not today.

At 18:12, Conrad announces that he's gotten assurances from the majority that they will make all efforts to get the farm spending bill tomorrow and vote on his amendment.  Of course, that's what they said yesterday, too, noted Conrad.  However, the evening is growing older and I don't wish to keep the Senate in session any longer than it needs to be, and I won't stand in the way of adjournment.  It's anybody's guess as to what will happen tomorrow.  I'll say this.  The Senate did nothing today.  Never did a bill come up.  This was Conrad's complaint: we aren't doing anything, why not just bring up the farm bill?

This is not to say that there aren't other bills the Senate could take up.  For one, there is the U.S.-India nuclear pact.  That could come up tomorrow.  Who knows.  At one point today, Conrad made a unanimous consent request asking that the Senate call up consideration of the farm bill and Senator Jim DeMint (SC), sitting as the presiding officer, rejected in his capacity as a senator (and on behalf of the majority leadership).  Then Conrad made a UC under which the farm bill would come up immediately after the U.S.-India nuclear pact debate.  DeMint also objected to this.

Sen. DeWine spoke around five o'clock.  He talked about Iraq and discussed the death of an Ohio serviceman in Iraq.  His tone was sincere, one of lament, issuing an elegy not just for the serviceman but perhaps also for himself, for his time in the senate at least.

The best rhetorical feat of the day might have come from Sen. Dorgan, who suggested that he and those proponents of the Conrad/Dorgan amendment should name the drought.  He said, how is it fair that farmers affected by Katrina get federal aid but those farmers in the plains hit by drought don't get help?  They are making a fairness argument.

Conrad says that 5-10% of North Dakota's 35,000 farmers will go bust if there is no federal aid.  He is calling for the government to step in, saying that the government has issued such help in each of the last 20 years.

He just wants a vote, he says, even if it is a defeating vote.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

November 14, 2006: Veterans Funding


The Senate passed a $90b veterans funding and military construction bill.  Incoming budget commmittee chairman Conrad began to exert his influence by winning consideration for a farm relief amendment.  Outgoing budget committee chairman Gregg said it was a daytime robbery of the treasury.  Frist said the agriculture bill, and Conrad's amendment, would be debated tomorrow.


The Senate is definitely back in action today.  There is a big Veterans funding bill coming through the chamber and already there is some bicep-swinging by the Democrats, fueled by their recent wins.  For instance, Sen. Kent Conrad (ND) wanted to bring up an amendment, which the Republicans must have been blocking (Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) was on the floor managing the bill for the majority) and Conrad was P-O'ed.  He wanted a vote on his amendment and he wasn't getting it.

At one point the Senate was is in a quorum call and he asked that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with but then Hutchison objected—which I've never before seen—and so the quorum call kept going and you could see on CSPAN-2 where Conrad went over to Hutchison and he raised his palms up saying, What the heck?  They worked something out, and Conrad dispensed with the quorum call, going on to say that the farmers and ranchers of the country deserved some emergency funding (drought, floods) and that the Senate typically allowed such emergency funding to be stapled onto the backs of large spending/funding bills, such as the bill on the floor. Conrad's amendment is worth $4.9 billion.  Then he goes, "If they're not gonna allow this to come to a vote, then things are gonna get real tough around here."  Translation: Conrad is the ranking member of the Budget Committee and he stands to be the chairman of this committee come January and it is not a good time to ruffle his feathers.

He called for comity (a state or atmosphere of harmony or mutual civility and respect) and complained about being repeatedly denied a vote on emergency funding for farmers and ranchers.  He then referred to the election and asserted that voters had spoken in favor of this kind of emergency funding.  But outgoing budget committee chairman Judd Gregg (NH) said that Conrad et al. were in fact not listening to the voters' plea for fiscal responsibility, and such an amendment was a daytime robbery of the Treasury. So, ah, things are already getting a bit snippy in the Senate.  That was it, back into quorum call.  Later, it would become clear that his amendment would come up for a vote during consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow.

The afternoon then became a very long vote calling forth absent senators to the floor.  Basically, it was a motion to charge the Sergeant-in-Arms to bring absent senators to the floor.  It seemed like the vote itself took over an hour.  It passed 95-1.

In any event, at 18:07 there are plenty of Sens on the floor.  OK, here is Conrad.  He is asking Frist's staff to go get him and bring him to the floor "so we can resolve this."  Conrad still hasn't gotten his amendment voted on.  It has faced a point of order (killing it if not germane) and a Rule 16 motion (no further amendments increasing the amount of appropriations unless allowed under already existing law).  Nonetheless, it sounds like there is a deal pending where Conrad will step off and pull back his amendment as long as the agriculture approps bill is brought up tomorrow, in a tight time frame, with limited amendments.  Apparently, this would be a deviation from the schedule, and is somewhat telling of the pull that Conrad is now brandishing.  He is thanking folks for agreeing to go to the ag bill tomorrow.  Assuming that deal is in place.

Whoa, now, Domenici is stepping in, the senior senator from NM, and he is saying, Hey we've got a bill, energy and water, and soon-to-be Sen Maj leader Reid (NV) is a co-sponsor, and Domenici will object UNLESS the energy and water bill follows the ag bill in the queue.  I'd say there is some scheduling chaos in the Senate and to me it looks like Frist has no control, even less than before.

Frist is back.  He has been in discussions and he confirms that the ag bill will come up tomorrow.  That means that this vets bill's gotta be done tonight.  Debate on ag emergency relief tomorrow, more germane there.  Want to get to energy and water bill.  But lots of appropriations bills outs there (10) and he intends to get to it "very very quickly as well."  Not good enough for Domenici, he wants a unanimous consent request, too.  A "UC."  Otherwise he will object.  Frist says, if I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna have chairmen all over the place comin at me, and I need some flexibility.  Frist doesn't want to do any UC's, doesn't want an "overall sequencing" of bills.

All of this is being worked out on the floor.  Conspiracy theories are dying like stranded plants in a dry desert.  Conrad is thanking everyone.  He has gotten what he wants.  There's your future budget committee chairman, no doubt.

He withdraws his amendment and now it's back to Hutchison.  She is gonna start clearing some amendments with voice votes...

By the close of business, the Senate approved the nearly $90 billion budget for veterans' health care and military construction projects. According to the Wall Street Journal, this bill will grow by about $42 billion to include "spending for housing and health-care benefits for the active military."

The WSJ continues, "As part of the same package, senators added language guaranteeing that the inspector general for Iraq would remain operating until 10 months after 80% of the funds appropriated for the relief and reconstruction effort there have been expended.  That date is expected to be near mid-2008 -- or about a year longer than current law allows the IG to operate."

Monday, November 13, 2006

November 13, 2006: Convening a Lame Duck Senate


The Senate reconvened this afternoon at 14:00 eastern, at which time it began a period of morning business.

I have checked in on CSPAN-2 a couple of times now and all I've seen are quorum calls (basically an abeyance, where there aren't any senators on the floor wishing to speak). So, as of 15:55 it's been a quiet day in the Senate. I did note that the House, in action on CSPAN, is debating the US-Vietnam free trade pact. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) highlighted several reasons why the agreement would hurt the wellbeing of Vietnamese citizens, peasants in particular: private competition with gov't, encroachment of multinational corps., etc.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

What Would Joe Do?


Senator Lieberman won re-election last week in Connecticut and has announced his intention to caucus with the Democrats.  Basically, this means he will organize with the Democrats and vote with the Democrats, as a default, on each roll call vote.  But what can we really expect from Joe?  The following list of issues details Lieberman's voting proclivity, as compiled from his recent voting record.  The first list includes those issues on which he voted with Republicans.  The second list includes those issues on which he voted with the Democrats.

Briefly, he has voted with Bush and the Republicans on Bush Administration Iraq policy, Bush's war on terror policy, and in favor of free trade initiatives.  Yet, he sticks with Dems on domestic issues, such as taxes, Alito, ANWR, and abortion.  Of course, this is a simplification of Lieberman.  His voting record is actually quite nuanced.  For example, he voted for Bush's military commissions bill, but he also voted in favor of Specter's attempt to add habeas corpus protections to the bill (which failed).  And, although Lieberman is seen as falling into line with the Bush Administration policy on Iraq and terror, Lieberman voted against confirmation of Flory as Asst. Secretary of Defense.

With Republicans:
Bush's Military Commissions Bill
Free Trade efforts, e.g. the Oman Free Trade Act
Limited Congressional Oversight on Iraq
Crack-down on earmarks

With Dems:
abortion
Sunsetting the military commissions bill
Habeas review for detainees
Democrat alternative to Port Security Bill
Stem Cells
Minimum Wage increase
Estate Tax Repeal
Bush-style Immigration Reform
Health Care
Flory as Asst. Secretary of Defense
Drilling in ANWR
Prohibiting the gov't from raising its debt ceiling [this failed]
Pay As You Go budget rules [this failed]
Voting against Alito confirmation

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Senate Tease


The Senate was supposed to be in session today, starting now, 10 am eastern. Everything looked like it was about to get underway—there was a saying of the pledge, and Sununu was announced as sitting in the seat of the president pro tem.  But then he said, "Under the previous order the Senate will recess until Monday November 13th 2006 at 2 pm."

So there you have it.  Today's session last for about 10 seconds.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Democratic Majority of Recent Memory


In 2000, Democrats picked up five Senate seats to tie the Senate count at 50 Republican, 50 Democrat. For the next year, Vice President Cheney served as the 101st senator, the tiebreaker. Then liberal Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and organized with the Dems to give them a 51/49 majority.

This narrow Dem majority held for about one year, overseen by South Dakota's Tom Daschle, the new majority leader. In the 2002 election, Republicans retook the majority by knocking off Dem senators like Daschle. After the 2004 election, the Republicans had 55 senators. This number has dwindled to 50—at the most—after Tuesday's election.

Good Luck in Virginia, Jim


Jim Webb (D-VA) received almost 8,000 more votes than his opponent, George Allen (1,170,564 to 1,162,717 with 99.8% reporting). The New York Times is reporting that a recount could go ahead because the margin of victory is less than 1% of total votes cast. However, such a recount cannot begin until the vote is certified, which is not scheduled to happen until November 27th. I hope Virginia puts a rush on certification because a recount after Thanksgiving is absurd. In any event, the wildcard here could be the Virginia courts. Not the most left-leaning judiciary. With this wildcard in his favor, Allen probably comes out of Virginia alive.

Tester, on the other hand, probably will take Montana even though his lead in votes is less than 1,600 (194,914 to 193,179 with 99.9% reporting). As The Times reports, that margin amounts to a 1.6 percent gap — "not enough, if it holds up, to give Mr. Burns the legal right to request a recount. Montana law provides for recounts only in races with a margin of one-quarter of 1 percent or less."

How the Senate Looks after Tuesday


With two races yet undecided, there are 49 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and 2 Independents in the U.S. Senate. If both Indies caucus with the Dems, which is most likely, that leaves 49 Repub, 49 Dem with the two undecided races more crucial than ever. Remember that if the Senate shakes out 50/50, Dick Cheney is the 101st Senator (R-DC).

So, here are the scenarios based on how the MT (Burns-R, Tester-D) and VA (Allen-R, Webb-D) could turn out:

Burns Wins, Allen Wins: 51 Repub, 49 Dem
Allen Wins, Tester Wins: 50 Repub, 50 Dem, 1 Cheney
Burns Wins, Webb Wins: 50 Repub, 50 Dem, 1 Cheney
Tester Wins, Webb Wins: 51 Dem, 49 Repub

Below you will find a list of the Senators by party who will comprise the Senate of the 110th Congress, starting next year:


Republicans (49): Alexander (TN), Allard (CO), Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Cornyn (TX), Craig (ID), Crapo (ID), DeMint (SC), Dole (NC), Domenici (NM), Ensign (NV), Enzi (WY), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Gregg (NH), Hagel (NE), Hatch (UT), Hutchison (TX), Inhofe (OK), Isakson (GA), Kyl (AZ), Lott (MS), Lugar (IN), Martinez (FL), McCain (AZ), McConnell (KY), Murkowski (AK), Roberts (KS), Sessions (AL), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME), Smith (OR), Specter (PA), Stevens (AK), Sununu (NH), Thomas (WY), Thune (SD), Vitter (LA), Voinovich (OH), Warner (VA)

Democrats (47): Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Biden (DE), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Clinton (NY), Conrad (ND), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Durbin (IL), Feingold (WI), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Menendez (NJ), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Obama (IL), Pryor (AR), Reed (RI), Reid (RI), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Whitehouse (RI), Wyden (OR)

Independents (2, +1): Lieberman (CT), Sanders (VT)


Totals tip due to losses by: DeWine (R-OH) [Brown], Chafee (R-RI) [Whitehouse], Santorum (R-PA) [Casey], Talent (R-MO) [McCaskill]

Effectively no change because of: Sanders (I-VT)/Jeffords (I-VT), Corker (R-TN)/Frist (R-TN), Klobuchar (D-MN)/Dayton (D-MN), Cardin (D-MD)/Sarbanes (D-MD)

Waking Up To The Sound of Nancy Pelosi's Voice


Democrats will now control the House of Representatives. What does this mean for the Senate? It will mean that Democrat-authored bills will work their way through the Senate. There will be a hefty amount of cloture votes where Republicans in the Senate will now be voting against cloture, i.e. filibustering those bills emanating from the House.

It takes 60 votes to end debate on a bill in the Senate. Assuming there are 50 Democrats (Montana and Virginia are still undecided: Tester prolly takes MT while VA courts will be too much for Webb). In any event, there will be at least 50 Dems in the Senate, including Sanders (I-VT) and Lieberman (I-VT). To pass a cloture vote—geez, if the majority leader has to call for cloture, would a Republican majority leader even call for such a vote? So many questions—

Who would the sixty votes be, including 50 Dems? Republicans siding with Dems on certain issues could be:

Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), McCain (AZ), Smith (OR)

And if you're talking trade, Dole (NC), Burr (NC), and Coburn (OK) have recent votes against free trade pacts.

Still, it looks to me like either side in the Senate could be stymied by the other. Republican leadership or filibustering can freeze anything coming from the House. And, Democrat leadership or filibustering can frustrate anything originating in the Senate. Even amendments, which need 50 votes, could be hard for either side if one Senator deviates from the party line.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

How the Senate Will Shake Out

Here is my count as to how the Senate will look after today's election. Recall that the current totals are: 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent. I have the after-election totals going: 51 Republicans, 47 Democracts, 2 Independents. If you want to count Sanders and Lieberman, the two indies, as Dems, then it is 51 Repub/49 Dems.

Here's what the final counts will look like:

Republicans (51, -4): Alexander (TN), Allard (CO), Allen (VA), Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Burr (NC), Chafee (RI), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Cornyn (TX), Craig (ID), Crapo (ID), DeMint (SC), Dole (NC), Domenici (NM), Ensign (NV), Enzi (WY), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Gregg (NH), Hagel (NE), Hatch (UT), Hutchison (TX), Inhofe (OK), Isakson (GA), Kyl (AZ), Lott (MS), Lugar (IN), Martinez (FL), McCain (AZ), McConnell (KY), Murkowski (AK), Roberts (KS), Sessions (AL), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME), Smith (OR), Specter (PA), Stevens (AK), Sununu (NH), Thomas (WY), Thune (SD), Vitter (LA), Voinovich (OH), Warner (VA)

Democrats (47, +3): Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Biden (DE), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Clinton (NY), Conrad (ND), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Durbin (IL), Feingold (WI), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Menendez (NJ), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Obama (IL), Pryor (AR), Reed (RI), Reid (RI), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Tester (MT), Wyden (OR)

Independents (2, +1): Lieberman (CT), Sanders (VT)


Totals tip due to losses by: DeWine (R-OH) [Brown], Burns (R-MT) [Tester], Santorum (R-PA) [Casey], Talent (R-MO) [McCaskill]

Effectively no change because of: Sanders (I-VT)/Jeffords (I-VT), Corker (R-TN)/Frist (R-TN), Klobuchar (D-MN)/Dayton (D-MN), Cardin (D-MD)/Sarbanes (D-MD),

Variations on outcomes:

Burns wins (52, 46, 2)
Chafee loses (50, 48, 2)
Chafee loses, Burns wins (51, 47, 2)
Webb wins (50, 48, 2)
Burns wins, Webb wins (51, 47, 2)
Chafee loses, Webb wins (49, 49, 2)
Chafee loses, Burns wins, Webb wins (50, 48, 2)
Steele wins (52, 46, 2)
Steele wins, Chafee loses (51, 47, 2)
Steele wins, Burns wins (53, 45, 2)
Steele wins, Webb wins (51, 47, 2)
Steele wins, Chafee loses, Burns wins (52, 46, 2)
Steele wins, Chafee loses, Webb Wins (50, 48, 2)
Steele wins, Burns wins, Webb wins (52, 46, 2)
Steele wins, Chafee loses, Burns wins, Webb wins (51, 47, 2)

Monday, November 06, 2006

Senate Returns on Thursday


The Senate will take a one-day breather on Wednesday and return to the floor on Thursday, November 9th!  It's been a long campaign-season break—last session was on Sept. 29th—but the senators will be back on CSPAN-2 Thursday for the introduction of new bills.

First, though, the elections.  I will be blogging the election in real time on Tuesday.  Again, my prediction is for a 50/50 split with key states going this-a-way:

Missouri—McCaskill (D)
Tennessee—Corker (R)
Virginia—Allen (R)
Montana—Tester (D)
New Jersey—Menendez (D)
Ohio—Brown (D)
Connecticut—Lieberman (I)
Arizona—Kyl (R)
Pennsylvania—Casey (D)

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Hit the Showers, John


John Kerry (D-MA) will serve out his term in the U.S. Senate, but when his seat comes up for re-election in November 2008, Kerry will either choose not to run (announcing a renewed attempt for the presidency), lose the Democratic primary, or lose to a Massachusetts Republican vying for the open seat.

In one word, John Kerry's political life is DONE. His recent comments on the Iraq war, in which he said that students who don't study hard enough will end up in Iraq, have put the final nail in his political coffin. Sure, Kerry might have been right about a certain percentage of the soldiers who are in Iraq or are headed there. BUT, there are enough soldiers out there who decided to enlist, or are in the reserves because they needed money for college, or went through ROTC for the same reason to prove Kerry's remarks inaccurate and stupid.

Sorry, John, you've said enough. Democrats still resent your failed run for the Presidency in 2004 and now that you've given Republicans a gift one week before a tight election, no one wants to listen to you anymore and voters are ready to look hard at any other name on a ballot where yours also appears.