January 25, 2007: Kennedy Accuses Republicans of Filibuster By Delay

[18:32]
The Kyl Amendment is tabled after the tabling motion gets 50 votes.


[18:29]
It has been a parade of votes on amendments all afternoon and into the evening.  A lot of these votes are on procedural motions such as a motion to waive application of the budget act or a motion to table.  Kennedy accused Republicans of filibuster by delay, asking the minority what is so offensive about raising the minimum wage, about doing something for working people.  He's been around long enough to know a filibuster by delay when he sees it.

Right now the Senate is voting on a motion to table a Kyl (AZ) amendment extending and expanding various tax breaks.  There are still a hoard of amendments on this bill that the Senate must figure a means to dispose of.  There will be another cloture vote tomorrow, it seems.


[12:22]
Vote on a motion to waive the budget act in favor of a health savings account amendment.  Majority is opposed to the amendment, minority in favor.  Those favoring the amendment need 60 votes because a point of order was made against the amendment (amdt. not germane).  Vote is virtually party line.

Dem ayes: Nelson (NE)
Rep nays:

Point of order is sustained, amendment falls.  47-48.


[12:14]
John Ensign (NV) says that health-savings accounts (HSAs) bring market forces to the health care field.  They would brings advances in quality and lower prices.  With the money in your account, you shop for quality and you shop for price.  HMOs were supposed to help manage care but really became about managing costs.  The Ensign amendment says that HSA pre-tax money can now go toward paying your health care premiums.  His amendment encourages people to establish HSAs.


[12:02]
Next up is an Ensign amendment setting up health-savings accounts.  Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Kennedy describe health-savings accounts (HSAs) as being aimed at the wealthy.  Stabenow characterized HSAs as having high deductibles.  HSAs are for people who are already insured, says Kennedy. Why does the min wage bill have to carry the burden of tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals, why is that Mr. President?  The average income of those using HSAs, he says, is $133,000.  Isn't just a vote against the min wage enough, can't you just vote against it and not load it up with these amendments?  Why not put it on the tax extenders, that's where you had it last time...


[10:52]
Yeas are 16, Nays are 76; needed 3/5, didn't get it; the point of order is sustained and the amendment fails


[10:31]
The Senate will now vote on the DeMint Amendment, #158.  Wait—no, not yet.  Kennedy raised against it a point of order, suggesting it violates the Congressional Budget Act's prohibition of unfunded mandates*.  Applying the Budget Act means the Amendment needs 60 votes to overcome the point of order.  Still, DeMint motions to waive the Budget Act.  Kennedy objects.  DeMint asks for a voice vote and gets it.  So the Senate is now in a roll call vote on whether to waive the application of the Budget Act.  A motion to waive needs 60 yea votes to overcome the point of order and will not get them.  If the point of order is sustained, the amendment will fall.  So this vote equates to an up-or-down vote on the Amendment, except 60 votes are necessary instead of the usual 51.

*The point of order, arising under § 425(a)(2) of the CBA, targets "unfunded mandates."  The law prevents consideration of legislation that contains an intergovernmental mandate in excess of $62m/yr.  This Amendment would mandate that every state raise its minimum wage by $2.10, which easily pushes its mandate above $62m/year.

Rep nay: Alexander, Kyl, Bunning, Isakson, Murkowski, McCain, Gregg, Smith
Dem aye:


[9:48]
Edward Kennedy, MA, floormaster of the bill.  Republicans want to delay, delay, delay.  Scores of amendments.  Ninety amendments!  Make no mistake about it, America, about who is holding up the minimum wage.  He is yelling.  Fifth day, fifth day that our Republican friends that have enjoyed a $32,000 increase in their pay are trying to scuffle, to sink this increase.  And I bet we didn't have one hour of debate on that issue.  One hour!  I don't impugn my friend from South Carolina but he has opposed the minimum wage every time he has voted on it.

Kennedy now pulls out a chart showing DeMint's voting record on the minimum wage.  His proposal to raise the minimum wage in each state, therefore, has kind of a hollow ring to it.  This is not the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest!  Some would like to have it that way, but it isn't, thank God.  But Kennedy admits that the DeMint amendment, "Does seem, to me, appealing in a certain respect...."  But Kennedy says it will effectively end the minimum wage...by...piling on those states that have already raised the wage themselves. (?)


[9:39]
DeMint's Amendment.  He calls it the "minimum fairness" law.  It would raise each state's minimum wage by $2.10.  DeMint says that the cost-of-living varies from state to state.  For example, the minimum wage right now in Massachusetts ($7.50) might not go as far as the minimum wage in South Carolina ($5.15).  So his amendment says, Let's just raise the minimum wage in each state by $2.10.  DeMint points out that workers in CA, OR, WA, MA, NY, IL, MA, PA will not get a raise if the underlying minimum wage bill passes because the min wage in those states is already higher than the $7.25 that would become the federal min wage under the bill before Congress.  Let's give everybody a $2.10 raise, he says.  Why raise the minimum wage in one state but not another, he asks.


[9:32]
Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) says it could be a late night.  There will be a string of votes, beginning with a vote on a DeMint (SC) amendment at 10:30.


With their rejection of cloture on the House version of a minimum wage bill, Senators yesterday made it clear that a "clean" version of a minimum wage increase—that is, one without tax breaks for small businesses—will not pass the Senate.  Everyone knew this already, so Max Baucus (MT) prepared a "substitute" bill in the form of an amendment that presents a compromise between the minimum wage hike and business tax breaks.  This measure will pass the Senate, the only question being: can Senators tack further amendments on top of the Baucus substitute?

Possible amendments include the "tip provision," which most Democrats oppose.  The "tip" provision says that employers can count an employee's tips toward the "wage" that the employer is shelling out.  Senators debated this tip provision last year when they considered a minimum wage increase.  Senators from states that mandate a minimum wage higher than federal minimum wage do not like the tip provision because it presents the possibility that the federal min wage increase actually could lead to a min wage decrease in their home states.  Yet, Republican senators last year presented a memo from the Labor Department saying that bureaucrats would not interpret the tip provision as lowering any state's current minimum wage—in other words, what existed currently would serve as the floor.  Democrats countered: yeah, but what happens if five years from now we want to raise our state's minimum once again?  Then, it seemed, the tip provision could affect whether employers in those states actually had to raise the wages they would be paying.