Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Wednesday, February 28, 2007:  


[11:03]
There seems to be an absence of debate/controversy concerning the bill.  Politically, it doesn't make much sense to get in the way of it.  It passed the House easily and it has now gotten 60 procedural votes in the Senate.  Susan Collins (ME) and Joe Lieberman (CT) are managing the bill.  A Feinstein Amendment just passed a voice vote on the floor after being cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Saxby Chambliss (GA) was on the floor earlier saying that the President's plan for Iraq needed time to work and that small signs of hope were already starting to present themselves.


Preview/Review:

The Senate yesterday voted unanimously on the motion to proceed to consideration of a bill that will implement further recommendations of the September 11th Commission.  Right now there are only a couple of amendments listed for the bill.  Yesterday's vote was a cloture motion vote limiting further debate.

Today the Senate begins at 9:30 e.s.t and will continue its consideration of the security bill. I'm not sure whether this means consideration of amendments or if they will consider just a couple of amendments and then vote on final passage.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Tuesday, February 27, 2007:  Rail Security Act; Possibly Speeches on Iraq De-Authorization


[12:27]
Lots of quorum call this morning.  Now it looks like the Senate has gone to recess until 14:15 est.


[11:01]
Dick Durbin (IL) is giving reasons as to why the Democrats are seeking to revoke the 2002 Iraq War Authorization.  That Authorization gave Congress's OK to President Bush as his administration launched a war on Iraq.  But the circumstances have changed, Durbin says.

But, before considering the Iraq War De-Authorization, the Senate will consider a bill that seeks to implement more recommendations from the September 11th Commission.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Monday, February 26, 2007:  Back In Session


[16:44]
The Senate has been in quorum call for awhile.  Byron Dorgan (ND) spoke earlier but I did not listen.


[14:00]
Senate is back in action.  Senator Bob Corker (TN) is going to recite President Washington's Farewell Address, a Senate tradition.  He is giving it from the tier just below where the President sits.

Preview/Review:
After a week off for President's Day, the U.S. Senate returns to business this afternoon at 14:00 e.s.t.  At that time, there will be a reading of Washington's Farewell Address.  Following that, a period of morning business.

The Senate's last meeting was last Saturday, when it rejected a motion to proceed to further debate on the House Iraq Resolution.  Here is that roll call vote.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Democrats Will Push To Revoke Iraq Authorization


According to the BBC, Senate Democrats will now try to revoke the 2002 "Authorization to Use Force in Iraq," which granted to President Bush a mandate to attack Iraq.  The Democrats will attempt to replace the 2002 Authorization with a narrower mandate in light of the knowledge that there were no WMD's in Iraq.  The BBC article does not say who will be sponsoring the legislation.  This comes on the heels of two Republican filibusters of resolutions voicing skepticism of the President's "troop surge" plan.  The difference here is that the revocation of the authorization is legislation, not a mere non-binding resolution.  Yet, it will still need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles and reach a final vote.

Same story in the NYT.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Senate on Recess Until Feb 26


The Senate is off until next Monday, Feb 26, 2007, on which date it will come in at 2:00 p.m. and begin a period of morning business.

Cloture on the House Iraq resolution did not pass on Saturday.  Republicans voting for cloture included: Warner (VA), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Hagel (NE), Specter (PA), Coleman (MN), and Smith (OR).

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Saturday, February 17, 2007:  A Second Try At Cloture on an Iraq Resolution


The schedule is:

12:00 p.m.: Convene and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 574, a bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

The time until 1:45 p.m. will be equally controlled and divided by the two leaders.

[Note: Unfortunately, I will not be around this afternoon to cover the cloture vote. I will post the results ASAP.]

Friday, February 16, 2007

Friday, February 16, 2007:  Warner Will Support the House Resolution


[16:26]
Ted Stevens, AK.  The senior senator from Alaska says that the Iraq Resolution vote is nothing but "political posturing" and "political posturing at its worst."  Actually, he seemed more upset by the announcement that the Saturday vote would cut short the planned Presidents' Day recess.  That recess was planned more than a month ago! he shouted.  And I live a long way away!  And those of us who live a long way away rely on that!  He asserted that the Iraq Resolution vote was designed to make those Republicans who are coming up for election "look bad."  He said that the Senate had no right to interfere with troop funding levels.  He announced his support for the Gregg Amendment, which has been a sticking point in the Senate's attempt to debate Iraq.  That Gregg Amendment vouches on the part of the Senate that it will not interfere with funding levels for troops, no matter what the military mission.  In the words of the Amdt., it is "A bill to express the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions."  As I read it, a President could invade Canada and point to the Gregg Amdt. as requiring that the Congress fund such a mission.  Nonetheless, it appears that enough Republicans will vote against the Iraq Resolution tomorrow as a protest.  A protest against Democratic refusal to allow the Gregg Amdt. to come to a vote.


[15:40]
Senators have continued to speak on the floor either in support or in opposition to the House Resolution on Iraq.  The resolution passed the House receiving 17 Republican votes.  It will need 11 Republican yeas in the Senate.  Based on how Durbin is talking right now, it sounds like the Dems don't have enough votes going into tomorrow's cloture vote.


[14:03]
John Kerry (MA) and Max Baucus (MT) rose in support of the House Resolution.  Baucus called Iraq a mess.

Now Saxby Chambliss (GA) is rising in opposition of the resolution (and in opposition to cloture).


[13:35]
John Warner, VA.  He will vote for cloture tomorrow (i.e. in favor of the House Resolution).  He will give his reasons at this time.  His thrust is that Iraqis should now take the main role in bringing security to Baghdad and to the rest of their country.  Our forces are actually not as adept as settling the conflict there as are the Iraqis themselves.  Our troops shouldn't be in there trying to decide: Do we shoot at a Sunni?  Do we shoot at a Shia?  He acknowledges that the last time he did not support the cloture motion because he was standing up for the institution of the Senate.  But now, he says, with the House itself passing the resolution, the circumstances have changed.

A quick recap on some other action this morning:

Russ Feingold, WI.  First time on the floor in awhile.  Two points.  The Republicans say that Democrats are (1) endangering the troops; and (2) emboldening the enemy.  Feingold responds: We endanger the troops by keeping them in Iraq, but putting them in harm's way there.  And who is the enemy?  The enemy is al Qaeda.  We are emboldening al Qaeda by bogging ourselves down in Iraq.  The Administration has taken its eye off of the enemy, off of the global terror threat, with this diversion in Iraq.

Ted Kennedy (MA) spoke on Iraq but I did not catch it.

Kit Bond, MO.  He wants to explain why there has been all of this attention on Iran in recent days/weeks.  Because they're the ones supplying the EFPs, he says, the explosive something penetrators, a particular kind of IED (improvised explosive device).


[12:02]
Time until 12:30 equally divided between majority and minority leader.  Then a period of morning business.  No roll call votes today.  Iraq cloture vote tomorrow at 13:45.

Dick Durbin, IL, majority whip.  He references the Iraq vote imminent today in the House.


[12:01]
The Senate is gaveling in right now (Tester presiding).

Thursday, February 15, 2007

February 15, 2007:  
Iraq Vote Scheduled for Saturday After Snowe & Hagel Object to Adjournment


[18:48]
The Senate has adjourned for the night but it will be back tomorrow at noon eastern.  Beyond that, the Senate will be in session Saturday for a 13:45 cloture vote on the House Iraq resolution.  Majority Leader Reid acknowledged that there was no good time for the Saturday vote.  He said that the vote will begin at 13:45 but it will be treated as beginning at 14:00 so that senators have an easier time fitting it into their schedules.  The cloture motion will need 60 yeas to pass.  The reason for the Saturday vote is that votes on cloture motion cannot take place earlier than 30 hours after they've been filed; Reid filed the motion today.


[15:38]
C-SPAN2, in the midst of quorum call, is replaying remarks from Olympia Snowe (ME), who has been unusually outspoken on this issue of debating Iraq.  She says, the Senate is about to adjourn for 12 days without first having taken a vote on Iraq.  She and Chuck Hagel (NE) have written a letter to the leadership (of both parties) voicing their disapproval of such scheduling.


[15:33]
I am watching C-SPAN2 and it sounds like the Senate is going to have another cloture vote on Iraq today.  A reporter from the Congressional Quarterly is saying that the Republicans objected to going home early and the Dems called their bluff.  The CQ reporter says that there is a Senate vote on Iraq scheduled now for Saturday.  More details when they unfold.


[15:22]
The Senate is in a quorum call right now.  I've been away from the television so I'm afraid I cannot account for the last three and a half hours.  I am surprised to find the Senate still in session at this hour before the Presidents' Day recess.


[11:51]
Specter, PA.  We are about to cede to the House our title of 'World's Greatest Deliberative Body.'  The rule in question is Rule 22.

OK, now Stevens (AK).  I cannot remember a time when we tied together the convept of first degree and second degree amendments and cloture and completely shutting off the minority.  He refers to maybe one other time, where Byrd was majority leader.  He refers to the majority as a 'majority of one,' and how they majority is making the minority irrelevant.  They ought to think again, we're only one vote away here.  This is a defining moment for the Senate, he says.  He says we are sending the wrong message to Iraq, even to Afghanistan, which he refers to as 'coming back.'  No amendments is not right, it's not the Senate, and I am not going to sit back and watch the Senate become a rubber stamp for the House.  That's the course we're on.

Senate goes into a period of morning business.  Leahy, he's going to talk about Iraq.

[11:40]
The debate moves on.  Arlen Specter (PA) has the floor.  He is scheduled to talk about upcoming judge votes but he wants to talk first about what is au currant.  He says what we have before us is the senate in paralysis.  And what we're going to see, he says, is the U.S. Senate about to become irrelevant.  We've got the House on the other side of the rotunda debating the major issue facing our country.

Byrd asks Specter to yield, which he does.  Specter said something about Reid having he right to "fill the tree."  Byrd says, no, he does not have the right.  He only has such right if no other Senator intervenes.  This is an argument about Senate rules, filling the tree, seeking recognition.  Specter says he has sought a change in the rules, he wants to end the business of "filling the tree."  We are in real danger of becoming irrelevant, he says.  We need not be dominant over the House but we ought to at least be equal.  Byrd wants to get in but Specter says he wants to finish.  The Senate is in anarchy, he says, while the House is in despotism.  He says he can't explain to his constituents what the Senate is doing.  We had 50 senators on the floor just now, having a debate about having a debate.  He made a joke about filling the tree that other senators laughed at but which went over my head.  He is calling on the majority to allow the minority to vote on its resolutions.

Now the Senate is finally caught, he says, where America and the world see what we're doing.  Specter has only four minutes left, and he still has to talk about judges.  He yields back to Byrd.

Byrd.  He congratulates the Senator from PA, observes his concern.  We don't need any more rules, he says, we've got enough rules.  Senators need to insist on their rights as senators, they ought to speak up, and they ought to pay attention.  Senators should read the rules, he says.  Senators should observe that they are senators.  We need to understand the rules we have, and the chair ought to, as well, insist that the rules be observed.  This is about 'filling the tree.'  Byrd seems to be saying that a senator, any senator, can seek recognition in order to block the majority leader from 'filling the tree.'

Now Ted Stevens (AK), who's been here for a little while, wants three minutes.

See, the Senate is slated to vote on judges and it's clear that it wants to, needs to address its paralysis.  Leahy yields time to Stevens.


[11:19]
The Senate will adjourn today and re-convene at 10:00 on February 26th, a Monday.  Reid has just asked for the Senate to vote on the House Iraq resolution at that time.  If no one objects, this means no cloture on such resolution, 51 votes meaning passage.

But minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) objects.  This is not the House, he says.  Our constituents want debate; our side wants to offer one or even two alternatives.

Reid wants to complete the Iraq surge debate on that Monday and then move on to debate about implementing the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Reid notes that some of the minority have said that we should be in session next week.  And I can be in next week, he says.  But he doesn't seem to be considering the idea seriously.

Now back to Mitchy Mac.  We're not here right now, I assume, to debate the merits of any Iraq resolution.  But he takes up the argument.  He is now proposing a unanimous consent request.  He is asking that the Senate proceed to: (1) The House Resolution; (2) The Warner Resolution; (3) The McCain/Lieberman Resolution; (4) The Gregg Amendment.  He is calling for four consecutive votes, one on each resolution.  Simple up-or-down votes, needing 60 votes for approval.

Reid reserves the right to object.  He says, the only issue we really need to address is Whether there should be a surge in Iraq, an escalation.  He says that these multiple resolution obfuscate the issue.  He objects.

Back to McConnell.  If this were allowed, this would be the second vote in a row where a 49-member majority would not be allowed to offer amendments.  This is the kind of thing that Senator Byrd would get on his feet and decry.  How can we only have one choice on the paramount issue facing our country.  The majority leader and I obviously need to sit down and craft an agreement.

Now John McCain (AZ).  He wants to explain his resolution.  It supports the surge, and it SUPPORTS the surge.  McCain says, why can't we have two votes: one on a resolution supporting the surge, one on a resolution opposing the surge.  I've never seen the Senate work this way, he says.  I've never seen the Senate consider only one proposal.  He asks Mitchy Mac, Have you ever seen anything like this?

McConnell.  I, too, am astonished.  The message is clear.  The majority can gridlock the Senate by refusing to offer choices, or we can sit down and work something out.

Pat Roberts (KS).  He could not support the House Resolution.  He supports the McCain resolution, the benchmarks.  Finally, some senators are weighing in, and there is some procedural tussling.  Perhaps this is sparked by the Iraq debate this week in the House.

Roberts says, Maybe we should consider the Feingold amendment, too.  It would propose that all troops be pulled out.  We oughta have that put in order, too, that oughta be a choice.

Reid has tried to get in but McConnell has the floor.  He will soon yield soon but he says the minority will insist on having some choices.  We haven't seen the Senate work this way?  Really?  I remember when we were in the minority, and this was how the Senate worked.  He cites the Golden Rule.  He says that he as Maj. Leader has followed the Golden Rule, on Ethics, on the Min Wage, even on the CR (or it would not have passed).  My friend from AZ has suggested that he be allowed to offer his amdt.  Reid is now proposing two votes: House resolution and McCain resolution.  We can do it tomorrow or even Monday.  He is offering it flat out, "those two resolutions."  With no other amendments being in order.  Take those two votes and then move on to Homeland Security, where Senators can offer any amdts. they want.

McConnell objects.  It's this Gregg Amdt. that they are insisting on.  They can't pick our amdt, he says.  If we only get one resolution, we want to decide what it will be.  He is now making his proposal again.  The Gregg Amdt, recall, says basically that the Senate agrees not to cut off funding for any military mission undertaken by the President.

Now Durbin steps in.  The Senate has heard this song before, he says.


[10:41]
The Senate is voting to confirm a new judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  This nomination is not controversial.  This will probably be the only vote of the day, and then the Senators will take the rest of the week and all of next week off to observe the Presidents' Day holiday.  All this talk by the Democrats about 'the end of the three-day work week' and 'more hours' in session appear to have been uttered in exuberance.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

February 14, 2007:  Budget Resolution Will Pass; What About Iraq?


[18:15]
The Senate adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.  Tomorrow will include speeches in morning business and a vote on a judge.


[17:32]
John Ensign, NV.  Ensign is giving a speech in tribute to our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln presided over Nevada's entrance to the Union.


[17:28]
Saxby Chambliss, GA. He is thanking the majority leader for working with him on funding for some program he is referring to in acronym.  Children's insurance.

He suggests the absence of a quorum.  The clerk will call the Roll.  Mr. Akaka...


[17:25]
The Senate confirmed a judge earlier.  Right now they are passing the budget resolution for FY 2007 government spending.  The floor is clearing after this vote, so the Senate is probably done for the day.  Reid is on the floor, Wyden, Levin, Snowe, Lott, Durbin.  Obama is presiding.  He winked at someone earlier.

Resolution passes, 15 votes in opposition.


[12:15]
John Cornyn, TX.  The junior senator from Texas had to come to the floor to respond to comments made yesterday about the state of the economy by Harry Reid (NV).  Reid described the state of the economy as 'bleak.'  This surprised Cornyn, who, if this economy was 'bleak', would hate to see, or, would love to see what a good economy looked like.  Cornyn then says, It's ironic that on the day the distinguished majority leader made this comment that on the front of "the Washington, ah...newspaper"...etc. quoting some story about the economy doing well.  Cornyn couldn't bring himself to say that the article was from the Washington Post, which he loves to include in a blanket bashing of the so-called liberal media but from which newspaper he has now taken articles twice in the last month to support the argument he is making.  He is now linking the strong economy to the tax cuts early this decade.


Preview & Review:
Yesterday the Senate voted its approval of the continuing resolution for FY 2007 government funding.  The resolution survived a cloture vote with 71 yeas.

The most interesting news coming out of the Senate yesterday came from Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV).  He indicated that he was now leaning toward the House Iraq resolution which is arguably more direct than the Warner Resolution that the Senate tried but failed to bring up for debate last week.  The House Resolution, being debated this week in the House, says two things.  One, Congress supports the troops.  And second, that Congress disapproves of the decision the President made on January 10, 2007 to send more troops to Iraq.  It is unclear when or if Reid would try to bring the House resolution before the Senate.  It would need 60 votes to succeed cloture.  It is unclear as of yet whether enough Republicans, specifically the Warner clan, would join the Democrats in taking the debate past cloture.  Recall that virtually every Republican opposed cloture on the Warner Resolution (even Warner) because the Democrats would not agree to allow a vote on a Gregg Amendment to the resolution that verified the President as the commander of military missions and ensured Congressional compliance in military misson funding, whatever the circumstances.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

February 13, 2007:  Cloture on Funding Resolution Today


[15:05]
Budget resolution survived a cloture vote 71 to 26.


[12:59]
The Senate is at lunch right now and will be until 14:15 est.  It's been another quiet day in the Senate.  Coburn (OK) talked about AIDS screening; Byrd (WV) gave an overview of the budget resolution (he is the chair of the appropriations committee); and Smith (OR) pleaded that Oregon continue to receive the "safety net" of federal funds it has received in recent years.

Smith offered more information on why Oregon needs the federal funding.  As he was saying yesterday, the federal government owns about half of Oregon.  There used to be a program where Oregon's localities received 25% of all the money made on timber taken from Oregon's forests.  However, when the Spotted Owl controversy blew up in the eighties and nineties, it became harder to log in Oregon, meaning that the 25% royalties were no longer coming in.  Recognizing this, Oregon began to receive money under an act whose terms are set to expire.  

Interestingly, Smith seemed to be trying to revive the Spotted Owl argument.  He said that scientific studies have begun to show that the threat to the Spotted Owl comes not from humankind but from nature.  It is the Bard Owl that began to wipe out the Spotted Owl because the Bard Owl, not native to Oregon, eats the Spotted Owl.   And, he said, now that the U.S. does not get timber from Oregon, it gets it from Canada, which is clearcutting plenty of lands in which the Spotted Owl made its home...


Preview & Review:

Earlier start today (10:00 est).  The Senate will vote on cloture this morning for the continuing resolution that is funding the government for 2007 in lieu of an FY 2007 budget.

Not too much talk yesterday about the budget, except for Oregonians Smith and Wyden.  Apparently Oregon is on the cusp of losing a bunch of federal funding.  They point out that much of Oregon is federally owned.  Because Oregon cannot tax the federal gov't, Oregon relies on payments in lieu of taxes (PILTs).  For some reason, a big chunk of these payments is set to expire unless the law is changed or renewed before the end of the year.

Otherwise, there was talk on Iraq yesterday, with the bloc of sometimes-moderate Republicans pleading for more Senate debate on the Warner resolution.  Their point was: Hey, just because we failed last week to reach a deal allowing for debate, why is there this sense that we've passed on our chance to debate Iraq in the Senate?  We've got all year to debate Iraq, says Snowe (ME), it's not getting any better over there, and we've been there four years now.

Monday, February 12, 2007

February 12, 2007:  Debate on Government Funding Resolution


[18:27]
Smith (OR) and Wyden (OR) have been quite present on the floor over the last hour plus.  As far as I can tell, Oregon is on the cusp of losing a bunch of federal funding—the money will be lost if the CR is not amended.  Smith is up for re-election in 2008.


[16:53]
Patty Murray, WA, on in support of the CR..."We are fast approaching the deadline," she says...


[16:43]
Olympia Snow, ME.  Snowe is usually kind of quiet but not this afternoon.  She wonders why there is a conception that the Senate has missed its chance to debate Iraq.  She is incredulous at Senate plans to take a recess next week (President's Day?).  Our troops are on the frontlines, and the Senate is on the sidelines, she says.  Before her Chuck Hagel (NE) spoke about prior instances when the Senate debated non-binding resolutions on conflicts.  The examples include Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia.  This is the group of Republicans who back the Warner Resolution on Iraq (Collins, Warner, Hagel, Snowe).  They are all calling for debate to take place in the Senate on Iraq.  Snowe observes that we have been in Iraq for four years and yet are still "mired" there.  She hates how the coverage of politics talks about who is winning, Democrats or Republicans?  Who is winning?, she asks.


[15:06]
Gordon Smith, OR.  Speaking on the...Secure rural schools & community determination act (?)  Smith says this is a dire issue and he says he is prepared to speak for five hours today.  I brought a lot of phonebooks with me, he says.  His companion, Ron Wyden (OR), will also be speaking on this issue in the coming days.  I'm still not quite sure what the issue is here.  He puts it as "The United States versus the Northwest, state versus state."  Fights for funding under the act.  Oregon gets a lot of money under the program, based on a formula that awarded money based on the amount of money reaped from federal lands in a given state.

Oh, this is him wanting to offer an amendment to the budget CR (continuing resolution).  But his amendment cannot be offered because the "tree is filled" (a procedure whereby the majority leader blocks any amendments from being attached to a bill).  He says "it's a rounding error in a $1.7t continuing resolution..."  


[15:02]
The Senate has been quiet today.  Either quorum call or speeches that have been made before.  Majority Leader Reid indicated that a cloture vote on the budget continuing resolution (CR) would come tomorrow morning.

Among the senators who've spoken today are: Grassley (IA)(alternative minimum tax policy); Dorgan (ND)(oversight on government contracting in Iraq); Alexander (TN)(Not sure; TV on mute); Thomas (WY)(Hartman as new Interior Dept. head)(btw, do you know what Gayle Norton, former leader at the Dept. of Interior is now doing?  Working for Shell!)

Review and Preview:
I was traveling last week.  Apparently, I missed only one vote, the confirmation of General George Casey as the new Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army.

The Senate will stroll in to the chamber today at 13:00.  Those not out campaigning for president will be debating government funding.  Before the Senate is a so-called "continuing resolution" which essentially guarantees funding of government agencies, programs, and employees in the absence of FY 2007 budgets.  Recall that last year under Frist & Co., the Congress did not pass a new budget for FY 2007 but chose instead to fund the government by way of these continuing resolutions, also referred to simply as "CR"s.  Majority Leader Reid (NV) and his companion Pelosi in the House agreed that they would not try to squeeze in a shortened FY 2007 budget but would pass one final CR to continue government funding until the end of FY 2007.  The current CR expires in three days (Feb. 15).  Reid has been of the mind that the Senate could not possibly pass two budgets in one year; that passing budgets this year for FY 2008 will be difficult enough.  I don't know how interesting debate on this CR will be.  It is my understanding that this CR CANNOT be amended.

Monday, February 05, 2007

February 5, 2007:  Republicans Filibuster Warner Iraq Resolution


[18:06]
The vote is 49 yea to 47 nay.  So, no cloture on the Warner resolution; it has been filibustered.  The Republicans were unhappy that Democrats would not agree to consider a Gregg Amendment to the resolution (an amendment stating "that the Constitution gives the president the responsibility for deployment and assignment of missions of U.S. military forces, and that Congress has the responsibility to fully fund those missions").


[17:58]
The motion to proceed to further debate on the Warner resolution will not pass.  What's happened is that Republican senators have voted as one against the motion, even those senators who are sponsoring the resolution (e.g. Warner, Snowe, Hagel, etc.)  Briefly, the Republicans have banded together in protest against the Democrats' refusal to allow an up-or-down vote on the Gregg Amendment, which states that the Constitution gives the president the responsibility for deployment and assignment of missions of U.S. military forces, and that Congress has the responsibility to fully fund those missions..  Of course, Gregg is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops but he wants to put the Democrats on record regarding troop withdrawal.  Reid offered to open the Gregg amendment to a 60-vote test but this was not enough for Repubs, they want it subject to a 50-vote test.  Only Collins and Coleman among Repubs has voted to let debate proceed.


[16:51]
Joe Lieberman, CT.  Lieberman speaks on minority time.  This resolution will not stop the troop surge, he says.  It will compromise our nation's security.  Our debate here will be heard by Iraqi moderates trying to decide what to do in Iraq.  What we say here will be heard by the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria; by the leaders of al Qaeda.  This is a resolution of irresolution on the part of Congress, on the "eve of a decisive battle."  Lieberman opposes the motion for cloture and urges those who believe Gen. Petraeus has a chance in Iraq should also oppose the resolution.  And, if you do want to cut off funding for Iraq, then vote on a binding resolution that would do just that.


[16:42]
Joe Biden, DE.  The President has not put forth a plan but a "tactic."  The Warner resolution is a bipartisan effort that will prevent escalation of the war in Iraq.  The way to get the Iraqis to reach a political solution is to start to draw down our troops, he says.

Let me clarify that at this point, the Warner Resolution is in the form of a bill.  It urges political settlement; it urges dialogue with regional neighbors; and it opposes the surge.


[16:40]
John Cornyn, TX.  He doesn't like polls, he said, and they shouldn't be used to govern our duties here, but he will take the time now to quote a poll that says Americans by 2 to 1 do not think a resolution in Congress will be helpful in our Iraq war effort.


[16:25]
Arlen Specter, PA.  The senior senator from Pennsylvania opposes the troop surge but will vote against cloture on the Warner resolution.  He disagrees with the way debate is proceeding in the Senate in that, post-cloture, the number of amendments that senators can offer will be fixed as per an agreement between the majority and the minority.  The majority can "fill the tree," a technical maneuver that prevents further amendments from being offered on a bill.  When senators want to offer an amendment post-cloture they cannot do so when the "tree is filled," and will therefore vote against cloture.  That is the position Specter says he finds himself in.  Thus, this is a senator who opposes Bush's plan for Iraq but is also opposing the Democratic effort to limit the scope of debate on Iraq.  Specter notes that there is only an hour and a half to debate a monumental issue.  He is right on this.  There are countless senators on the floor seeking time.  Everyone wants to talk yet there is only a 90-minute block set aside to allow for Iraq debate.

The problem, as Reid hinted at it earlier, is that he wants the Senate to start working on budget bills by Wednesday (because our government has not had a budget since FY 2006).  In order to speed the Iraq debate along, Reid and his minority counterpart, Mitch McConnell (KY) are trying to work out some kind of deal where the Warner resolution will get an up-or-down vote as well as perhaps two other Republican resolutions.  This leaves someone like Specter in the lurch, who wants to offer a resolution himself, but who would be prevented from doing this under the deal.


[15:05]
Robert Byrd, WV.  The senior senator from West Virginia is making a speech about the mine health safety act and is criticizing the Dept. of Labor and the White House budget office. [15:20]  Forty-seven coal miners perished, died, dead last year, half of them in West Virginia.


[14:57]
Trent Lott, MS.  Wants to get a word in.  If the senator from WV uses the next 60 minutes we will be out of morning business without our side having a chance to respond to Durbin or Schumer.  Byrd says he is reasonable and yields five minutes without losing his right to the floor.

Lott has five minutes.  This is all a bunch of show & tell, he says.  We know our leaders are gonna find a way to work this out, he says.  So why are we here calling this blocking and delaying.  This is the United States Senate, he says, we are gonna have a full debate, on this issue and others.  This is not an effort to block debate.  And when we do debate, we ought not to do so in the form of a non-binding resolution.  This is a lot of sound and fury.  And Byrd in the background finishes the quote.


[14:52]
Chuck Schumer, NY.  This is a filibuster by Republicans so that we cannot debate Iraq.  Yes, we filibustered judges, says Schumer.  We'll stand by that.  But are they (the Repubs) willing to stand by a filibuster of a debate on the war in Iraq?  How can we not debate a war that has no strategy, he asks.  He talks about how this war has "devolved" into a civil war, echoing the comments of Gordon Smith (OR) who has said that this war has "mutated" over time, going from being a war to dethrone to Saddam to a civil war.  Every senator who votes against cloture is a vote saying "I do not wish to debate this war."  The McCain resolution is getting its equal place under the sun.  It's yes or no.  Do you support this escalation or do you not?  The election answered that on behalf of the American people.  Here we are at this sorry moment, the most important issue to face this senate in quite a while, on which we will have no debate.  It is the very lack of debate that led us into this situation in the first place.


[14:47]
Dick Durbin, IL.  The minority is preventing us from having a debate in the Senate.  They are demanding that a couple more of their amendments be voted on before they will agree to let debate proceed.  We've shown good faith on our side, says Durbin.  We are already considering one Republican's resolution (Warner) and we have agreed to up or down votes on McCain's resolution and on a Gregg amendment.  What more do they want?  They are taking us into the maws of this wretched civil war and they should be able to stand up to face the debate.  Why are we here if we cannot debate the single most paramount issue facing our country?  The White House does not want this debate, he says.  This is not a vote of "no confidence" in our troops.  Do you think Senator Warner would offer such a resolution?


[14:37]
The Senators on the floor include: Byrd, Durbin, Schumer, Warner, Lott.  Byrd (WV) has 60 minutes reserved.  They are all talking abck and forth with the chair trying to figure out who is going to talk when.  Asst. Minority leader Lott (MS) is trying to secure the right to interject or respond to speeches by the majority.  Lott is now making a unanimous consent (UC) request that would line up Durbin then Lott then Byrd then Warner.  Byrd reserves the right to object and asks what the order is.  He hates UCs.  Byrd wants to know what order has been previously established.  There is no order already established, though.  Pryor (AR) is the chair and he is bamboozled.  Durbin has the first ten minutes and then Byrd has 60 minutes at some point.  He's got time reserved, he says, and no one else has gotten in line.  Lott is saying he wants time after Durbin and Schumer in order to respond; to establish a flow and some fairness.  Byrd is not happy.  He wants his hour, and the chair says you'll get your full hour.  Byrd objects to the request by the senator from MS.  Schumer offers a compromise but Byrd doesn't let that through either.  Durbin is just gonna start, now at 14:46.


[14:35]
There are several senators on the floor wanting to speak.  It appears as though the Warner resolution will not get 60 votes.  Reid is upset and talking about how it sucks not to get 60 votes to proceed with debate; that people across the country are talking about and debating Iraq; that the only place where people aren't talking about Iraq is in the U.S. Senate.


This afternoon the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to further consideration of the Warner Iraq resolution.  For this motion to succeed, it needs to garner 60 votes.  Senators Feingold (WI) and Dodd (CT) have already said that they will not vote for the resolution, because they believe it is too weak.  Lieberman (CT) will not vote for it because he believes it undercuts the President's plan.  (Down to 47 votes).  But Republican senators Warner, Snowe, Collins, Smith, Coleman, Brownback, Hagel, and probably Specter will vote in favor of the resolution.  That brings the total up to 55.

Other speculation wonders if presidential candidates like Obama may not vote for the resolution because it is not stern enough.  Likewise, 20 up-for-election in 2008 Republicans like Sununu (NH) and Alexander (TN) could support the resolution in fear of the political fallout two years from now if they appear complicit in something that is by then even worse than it is now.  Either way, this resolution is going to have a hard time passing.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

February 1, 2007:  Min Wage Passes Senate But Its Journey To President's Desk Is Far From Over


[18:41]
The Senate passed its version of the min wage bill but there is still lots of work to be done before a min wage bill is on the President's desk.  First, because the Senate version of the bill was the first to add tax provisions the bill must first go BACK to the House before its goes to conference.  The Constitution requires that tax provisions in bills originate in the House.  This means that the House is going to have to create a new tax bill and then add on the min wage provisions.  The House will then have to pass that bill.  It remains to be seen what tax provisions the House will tack on to the wage provisions.  Second, I am not sure whether the House's new min wage bill must go back to the Senate or can go straight to conference.  Finally, the two houses must reach a compromise at conference on the bill.  I am unclear as to whether Republicans have any power at conference to prevent Democratic conferees from agreeing to strip the Senate's tax provisions from the final bill.  But maybe Bush would veto such a bill.  Either way, this is going to take a while longer.  Also, I read in the Wall Street Journal that the Congress would pay for the small business tax breaks by closing some existing holes in the tax law that allow for tax shelters and quirks with executive pay.


[15:32]
The Senate is in a quorum call.  Majority Leader Reid said that he hopes to have the final vote for passage of the minimum wage bill tonight.  In any event, there will not be any votes tomorrow.  Although min wage is still the pending business of the Senate, most of the cloakroom wheeling and dealing concerns the Iraq resolution(s).

Last night, the Warner and Levin/Biden/Hagel resolutions were melded.  This combo should bring along a good dose of Republicans including: Warner (VA), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Coleman (MN), Smith (OR), Hagel (NE), and probably Specter (PA).
 Interestingly, the Warner resolution does not have the support of Russ Feingold (WI) or Joe Lieberman (CT).  Recalling that Tim Johnson (SD) cannot vote, this leaves 48 Dems plus 7 Reps equals 55 votes in favor of the resolution.  Warner and Co. will need to round up five more votes.


[11:40]
It's been a slow day so far in the Senate.  The senators are about to vote on a series of judge nominations.  These are not controversial judges.

The other speeches have concerned Iraq.  Jon Kyl (AZ) quotes from newspapers including the Washington Post to make a case that the Iraqis are starting to take on more responsibility in Iraq on security matters.

Arlen Specter (PA) then referred to a handful of Supreme Court cases to argue that there is plenty of precedent for Congress sharing with the President the power to make decisions in wartime.  Specter cited cases either where the Congress prevented the President from taking a certain action or placed conditions on Presidential action during wartime.  Specter has been vocal in rebuking the President for saying that he is "the sole decider" when it comes to decisions about war.  Specter referred to these cases as a way to say, "No, you're not."