January 11, 2007: A Day of Debate on Earmarks & Iraq

Recap: Senators voted on two amendments.  First, senators rejected a motion to table a DeMint amendment that proposes to define earmarks so as to include (1) language added to conference reports (late in the legislative process) and (2) appropriations to federal entities such as the Army Corps of Engineers.  This definition clashed with that in the Reid/McConnell S.1 substitute bill, which the leadership on both sides hopes will represent the final senate ethics bill.  It was unclear whether DeMint's bill could once again receive 50 votes from the Senate, and he suggested that Dems were twisting arms to prevent several of their own from voting with DeMint on this issue in the future (Tester, Webb, Kerry, Obama, Landrieu, Feingold, et al.).  Durbin debated DeMint and Coburn on the floor regarding the definition of earmarks under DeMint's bill, asserting that DeMint's bill was weaker on disclosure requirements and targeted tax credits.  Durbin and Coburn further debated whether a committee could "authorize" an appropriation so as to lift it from earmark status.  This debate was the highlight of the day.  Another DeMint amendment needed 60 to evade a budget point of order but received only 25 votes.  That amendment sought to alleviate pressures on senators who were "blackmailed" into voting for spending bills late in the year fearing a government shutdown otherwise.  Finally, there was plenty of debate on Iraq, specifically a speech from Robert Byrd and an exchange between he and Jon Kyl, who warned of a "holocaust" in Iraq if the U.S. exited prematurely.

[16:44]
Now DeMint gets the floor.  He says that the Senate is starting to "feel a little bit like the House."  He was in the House circa 2003 when his fellow Repubs held open the Medicare vote for three hours.  DeMint's basic point is that Reid's definition of earmarks will address only 5 out of every 100 earmarks.  We're back here re-voting after some arms have been twisted, he says.  We won this vote fair and square, and this is going to happen to all of you.  If this is how we're gonna do business then we oughta set this ethics bill aside because it's all pretense anyway.

Sen. Hutchison to DeMint:  How does your definition of earmark help increase transparency?

DeMint:  My definition of earmarks will capture federal earmarks (earmarks for spending by federal entities) and earmark language added to conference reports (langauge added late in the process).  He is now also saying that he is open to changing some of the tax break language in his amendment that senators have seen as problematic.

[I must say, this is a rather strange scene on the floor of the senate, some real debate, some back and forth, lots of senators on the floor.)


[16:37]
With all of the senators on the floor, sitting like students in their seats, Majority Leader Reid took to the blackboard so as to explain how the Reid/McConnell definition of "earmark" (in the S1 "substitute" bill) is very much preferable to the definition in the DeMint amendment (#11).  Reid says his definition has been vetted; that it is better than the House definition (which is identical to DeMint's).  He hopes the Senate does not have to vote on the DeMint amendment again.


[16:22]
Senate is in midst of a vote requesting that senators return to the floor.  Most everyone is voting in favor of the motion.


[16:08]
DeMint came on and said that he was encouraged by the bipartisan support for his amendment (a tabling vote did not succeed).  However, after the tabling motion fell DeMint asked for a voice vote on passage of the amendment, an action he said is customary in the Senate when a tabling motion fails.  DeMint said that he had never seen anyone object to a request for a voice vote in a such a situation.  DeMint further stated that Democrat arm-twisting in back rooms meant that his amendment would come back up for a vote and that this time the Dems believed they had enough votes to kill it.  Earlier, Dems voting against the tabling motion included: Lieberman, Tester, Kerry, Feingold, Obama, Nelson (FL), Cantwell, Harkin, and Landrieu.


[15:03]
Senator Joe Lieberman (CT) offers an amendment, #30, which would establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity, which would be a third-party group responsible for enforcing the laws and rules governing the Senate.  There is opposition to this amendment.  It came up for a vote last year but received only thirty votes in favor.  It would take away the Senate's right to police itself through the Ethics Committee, and most Senators probably do not want to hand that right to an outside office.  This amendment is co-sponsored by Kerry, Feingold, Carper, et al.


[14:48]
DeMint Amendment 13 (eliminating threat of gov't shutdown in circumstances where no spending bill is passed) needed sixty votes to survive but did not receive them and is therefore dead.  It needed sixty votes to sustain a budget point of order made against it because it ran afoul of the Budget Act in a way I didn't catch (I was getting lunch).


[14:27]
Motion to table DeMint Amendment 11 is not agreed to, something of a surprise.


[14:01]
Now a vote on the motion to table the DeMint Amendment #11, which broadens the definition of "earmark" while arguably weakening the disclosure requirements proposed in alternative definitions of "earmark."  The Yeas and Nays are ordered, the clerk will call the roll.  Mr Akaka...

The vote on this is somewhat mixed but it will definitely not pass. Whoa, wait a minute:  Obama (IL), who observed the debate from the president's chair has voted no, but most Dems are voting to kill it as are some Repubs (Lott, Cochran).  Webb (VA) votes no as does Nelson (FL).  No votes from Lieberman, Kerry, this thing's got a shot.  Cantwell no.  Harkin no.  Smith aye.  Voinovich aye.  This is a truly mixed vote.  Landrieu no. Cochran, reading the tea leaves, changes to a no.  Specter no.  Hatch aye.

Vote: Ayes are 46, Nays are 51, the motion to table is not agreed to.

Note that a vote to table an amendment is a vote to kill the amendment.  You could conceivably vote no on a tabling motion and still vote against an amendment.  The idea there is to say, I probably won't vote for this thing but maybe we need some more debate.


[13:38-13:56...]
Coburn goes on to speak in favor of DeMint's Amendment 11, which would define earmarks in the Senate bill just as the House will define them in its bill.  Coburn says that, without a re-definition of "earmark," the Senate bill will "clean the outside of the cup while leaving the inside dirty."  He predicts that DeMint's amendment will fail, unfortunately.  The problem seems to be language being added to bills in conference, after they've gone through committee and been voted on separately by each chamber.  Coburn says there's nothing wrong with trying to bring funding to your state, but let's pass these requests through committee so we can agree on what is worthwhile and what's not.  Coburn says, There's no one down here defending the other side.  He wants to have that debate.  OK, here's Durbin.

Durbin: There are two problems with DeMint's amendment.  First, he doesn't cover tax breaks, which are essentially the same as a funding handout.  Second, the reporting requirements are weaker.

DeMint: I would be happy to work on some of that language, and if we table this amendment, we're not gonna get that done.

Coburn: I'd rather have decent reporting on 95% than strong reporting on 5%.

Durbin: Under your definition, money going to federal agencies is an earmark.  Those aren't earmarks and the paperwork associated with labeling those as earmarks will be too voluminous.

Coburn: No, something that's been authorized by committee is not an earmark. Durbin had used an example of an appropriation to the FDA for AIDS research. Coburn says, That's not an earmark because it's been authorized by the Senate as a whole.  Coburn gets a little hot.  He says the Reid/McConnell definiton of 'earmark' is a "sham."

Durbin: I have been talking to the senator from OK (Coburn) and we might be able to agree on some tightening of the language.  But as it exists now I still must oppose it.

DeMint: If we don't address the conferece report language problem, I know that people here are going to start pushing their earmarks into conference reports and perverting that process.

Durbin: You cannot "authorize" a program with committee report language.

Coburn: Reads a series of earmarks routed through Army Corps of Engineers, which he observes are "federal earmarks."  None of these are authorized, no one ever finds out about those unless we bring them up on the floor.  Anybody who votes to table this amdt. wants to continue the status quo on earmarks.

Durbin: Committee report language is like sending a note to your sister.  The Reid/McConnell earmark bill will fix the problems we've had.

Time for this debate runs out.


[13:23]
Senator Tom Coburn (OK) says that How Long and At What Price is a false choice.  We're gonna have to fight this fight somewhere, says Coburn.  (But I wonder, Aren't the add'l troops for Baghdad? And who is it we are going after in Baghdad? Is it not the militias of Sadr City? Those are not al Qaeda... As far as I know al Qaeda is not in Baghdad but active moreso in Al Anbar province, west of Baghdad....)


[13:05]
Jon Kyl (AZ) follows by saying that criticizing the President without offering an alternative is the worst kind of partisanship.  The President has come up with a new strategy, and he laid out that strategy last night.  The only alternative I've heard is that we withdraw.  Kyl tries to pick apart Mikulski's analogy that we are in a hole and the President's solution is to dig deeper.  Kyl says this analogy doesn't work and uses it to say, What if we saw the first wave of our boys at Normandy as dying and digging us in a hole?  Were more boys digging us deeper?
 At this, Senator Byrd responds by saying, This is not Normandy.  What is it we are seeking to achieve by putting more troops into Iraq?  Kyl is happy to yield but he wants time put back onto the clock.  He wants to respond to Byrd's questions of Why are we there and What is this strategy supposed to achieve?

Second question first.  Bush got a commitment from Maliki and Co. that they would do something differently in the future.  What you ask?  A division of the city into nine specific regions, more troops from the Iraqi army into the city, and to hold the areas to prevent anyone from coming back in.  The Iraqis have cleared the area before but have previously allowed the killers to come back in.  So now the agreement seems to be that the Iraqis won't let the bad guys back in to Baghdad once it's cleared.  Clear and hold.

As to why we are there in the first place?  References to bin Laden.  He wants to install a caliphat, with Baghdad as the capital.  This is Kyl's "big picture" answer.  He scratches the skin under his eye.  We have to defeat al Qaeda and the other terrorists in Iraq.  We can't leave Iraq a failed state, it would lead to a "—I'm gonna use the word—'holocaust' for Iraq."

Byrd asks Kyl to yield.  He is happy to yield.  Byrd: He says we have no stomach to stay there.  For how long?  At what cost?

Kyl: Our efforts in the war on terror would be set back if we leave Iraq a failed state.  Osama bin Laden has a saying about a strong horse and a weak horse and he says we have always been a weak horse (Lebanon, e.g.).  If we leave now, we will only validate the view he has propounded.  Hundreds of thousands of people are likely to be killed if we leave Iraq a failed state.  Who wants that blood on their hands?  He says that what we've just done in Somalia is a good illustration of how we make ourselves more secure when we take the fight to the enemy.


[12:43]
He asks us to, "Hear me now!  Hear me!"  He said from the beginning we ought never to go into Iraq.  This is not a solution, this is not a march toward victory. The President's own military advisors have indicated we do not have enough troops to make this mission successful.  Hear what I have to say.  Many commanders have already said that ours is an army that is at its breaking point.  Why then is the President advocating it?  This decision has the smell of politics to me.  Suggesting that an additional 20K troops will alter the balance of this war?  Your men and women, your sons and daughters.  Into this maelstrom, this sausage grinder, this great drainer of blood and life.  A way for the President to appear to be taking bold action but it is only the appearance of bold action not the reality.  Much like the image of a cocky president in a flight suit declaring mission accomplished from the deck of a ship.  Too long!  Mr. President, I said in the beginning I won't go, it's wrong.  We should not invade this country which has never invaded or attacked us.  If you're going in the wrong direction, you turn around.  This President is asking us to step on the gas.  Full throttle while he has not even clearly articulated where we are going.  What is our goal?  What is our end game?  How much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi govt before our men and women come home? How long, how long, HOW LONG?! America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting solution, not contributing to one. Enough waste and enough lives lost on this misadventure in Iraq. While the problems Americans face are ignored.  The people in the plains, the mountains, the hollows, and the hills.  We wallow in debt and mortgage our future to foreigners, that's what we're doing, and we're continuing. And we're asking for more, more, more.  He shakes, he needs a kleenex.  He is Robert Byrd (WV).


[11:52]
Yes, Feinstein (CA) is on now to say that the Senate will vote on the DeMint amendments 11 and 13 this afternoon, probably in the form of tabling amendments.  DeMint will have 45 minutes under his control, minus the time he just took to respond to Durbin.


[11:41]
Here is Senator Jim DeMint (SC), who says Durbin is not completely informed about the DeMint amendments.  DeMint says, This is Pelosi's language. DeMint says, "This is about disclosing the favors that we do for ANY entity."  The Abramoff and Cunningham scandals grew out of earmarks to federal entities, he says.  As for the government shutdown, DeMint hates being forced to vote for spending bills late in the year and then finding out about all of the earmarks in the bill after the fact.  His amendment takes the pressure off in those situations late in the year.  DeMint sounds like he would prefer the continued resolutions (in lieu of spending bills) to "10,000 earmarks".  He is "very disappointed" that Durbin is not willing to help him on these two amendments.

The Dems are going to try to table these amendments, says DeMint.  I have a feeling those tabling motions could come later today.


[11:30]
Durbin says that DeMint's Amendment 11 language redefining earmarks is too broad.  The DeMint language would classify money going to federal entities—the Department of Defense, the FDA, for example—as an earmark.  Durbin is saying that this would make most appropriations bills nothing but "earmarks," which goes too far. DeMint's amendment also include in its earmark definition language added to conference reports, which Durbin is not addressing.  Durbin's problem seems to be with defining appropriations to federal entities as earmarks.  Durbin says that the Reid/McConnell amendment (He is talking about the S1 Substitute, Amendment 3).  Further, Durbin has a problem with other language in DeMint's Amendment 11 concerning "targeted tax credits."  I don't follow this, but Durbin is saying DeMint doesn't go far enough her, does not go as far as Reid/McConnell.  Interestingly, DeMint's language is that of Pelosi and the House.  Durbin acknowledges this, saying that the final language will have to be fixed in conference.

Durbin is also opposing DeMint's Amendment 13, which vitiates the possibility of a government shutdown when the legislature has not passed spending bills.  Durbin believes this bill could serve as a crutch when Congress is failing to do its job of passing appropriations legislation.


[10:31]
In her usual fiery way, Barbara Mikulski (MD) is criticizing the plan for "escalation" in Iraq, wondering who will clean the streets of Baghdad and who will keep them clean afterward.  She wants to see someone clean up the corruption in the Iraqi ministries; she rebukes Senator Cornyn for suggesting that critics are cutting the legs out from under Maliki, that his government has no legs.  What is the alternative, you want to know?  She says we should listen to the commanders on the ground, and to the Iraq Study Group.  That we should send in diplomats before more troops.


[9:42]
Chuck Grassley (IA) is back.  He doesn't want to hear any criticism of Bush's plan unless the critics themselves have a plan....  He goes on to talk again about Medicare and to debate the changes Democrats propose to make to Medicare, mostly concerning whether the government should negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare plans.  He has addressed this issue each day this week and I have detailed his points in previous posts (Jan 9, 10:25; Jan 10, 12:46).


[9:39]
Majority and Minority Leaders give opening speeches.  Majority Leader Reid (NV) speaks about Iraq in somber tones.  Minority Leader McConnell (KY) echoes Reid's wish to finish the ethics bill next week.  He does not echo Reid on Iraq but paints the opposition position as "condemning [the plan] before it starts."  He notes the lack of attacks in the U.S. to our policy of being "on offense," which has been "100% successful here in the homeland."