Friday, March 23, 2007

March 23, 2007:  Votes on Budget Gameplan


[13:11]
The Senate has been working for most of the week on the FY 2008 Budget Resolution.  The resolution is non-binding but not insignificant.  It is a sort of playbook that the Senate passes to help it pass its budget for the coming fiscal year.  That said, it is an open feast for senators to push their pet amendments regarding taxes and spending.

For instance, the Democrats just voted down a Grassley Amendment that would have repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  It received only 44 votes; and frankly I'm surprised that no Democrat voted for it, considering they are such big advocates of "the middle class."  Score one for the Repubs here.

Now Jim DeMint (SC) is offering an amendment to repeal the "death tax" a.k.a. the estate tax, which he calls un-American.  The Senate is about to vote on it.

In summary, both sides are bemoaning government spending and now finally the Republicans are complaining about the national debt.  Both sides agree, however, that federal spending on entitlement programs (social security, medicare, and medicaid) is about to get out of control.  It seems to me that these programs either have to be pared back (which the democrats won't do) or taxes have to be raised (which Republicans won't allow).  Figure that out.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Tuesday, March 20, 2007:  Senate Votes 94-2 To Fix PATRIOT ACT Provision On Interim U.S. Attorneys


The two senators who voted against the patch-up were Kit Bond (MO) and Chuck Hagel (NE).  Under the PATRIOT Act, as reauthorized in 2006, the Executive (i.e. the President/Attorney General) could appoint interim U.S. attorneys without having to submit those attorneys to the Senate for confirmation.  The bill the Senate passed yesterday switches up the interim appointment power, to wit:

(1) If the President appoints an interim U.S. attorney, that attorney must pass Senate confirmation within 120 days of the appointment.

(2) If after 120 days that appointee has not been confirmed by the Senate, the appointment expires, and the U.S. District Judge for the district housing the vacancy must appoint a replacement.

S. 214, amending Chapter 35 of Title 28, U.S. Code

The legislation still must pass the House and be submitted to the President before it becomes law.

Monday, March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007:  PATRIOT ACT Patch-up To Fix U.S. Attorney Problem


Today the Senate is debating legislation, namely S.214.  In the bill's own words, this legislation will "preserve the independence of United States attorneys."  It seems that during the revision/re-authorization of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act in 2006, a provision was added to the Act giving to the Attorney General the power to appoint new U.S. Attorneys when a particular U.S. attorney position opened up (by resignation, firing, etc.)  This took out of the Senate's hands the power to confirm/reject candidates for U.S. attorney in these specific cases where a U.S. attorney vacated his/her position in the middle of a president's term.

No one probably thought much about this statute last year when the PATRIOT Act was going through a revision process, but now the statute has become significant.  When the Justice Department fired the nine U.S. attorneys recently, the job of replacing these attorneys fell to the auspices of the Attorney General alone.  The Senate was on the outside looking in.  Had the PATRIOT ACT not included such a provision, the Senate would have had the right to give its advice/consent as to potential replacements.

Today the Senate is considering a bill that will restore to the Senate its constitutional right to confirm/reject candidates for U.S. attorney to fill vacated spots mid-term.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

March 15, 2007:  Specter Finds Himself In A Tunnel And He Doesn't Know How To Get Out


[12:41]
Arlen Specter, PA.  Specter's analogy for the U.S. and the Iraq war is this.  We are in a tunnel, and we can't see the end of the tunnel, much less any light at the end of the tunnel.  We want to get out of the tunnel, sure, but we're not quite sure how to get out.  Specter will oppose the Democratic Resolution (S.J. 9, a.k.a. the Reid resolution) calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops except for purposes of training and protection of U.S. assets.  Specter fears that the Senate is attempting a micromanagement of the war, a common Republican position.  But he has specific anecdotes he uses to explain why he thinks this.  He says that the Senate wants to set a deadline for U.S. troops being in Iraq but yet it has a hard time deciding even when itself is going to vote on these Iraq resolutions.  He observes that there were, as of this morning, four Iraq resolutions to be voted on, starting at 14:45 today.  Two of those resolutions, he says, he has not yet seen.  (This is true, there is a new Murray Resolution, and Warner penned a new resolution but has since withdrawn it—the Senate will vote on three Iraq resolutions starting at 14:45 this afternoon).

Specter said he would vote for the other two resolutions, one by Gregg, one by Murray, which he said weren't quite twins but were probably first cousins.  He did note that the Gregg resolution, which holds first that Congress would take no action to endanger the troops, could be interpreted as, in its second point, taking out of the hands of Congress the power to cut off troop funding for any military mission.  Specter said you don't have to read it this way, i.e. as prohibiting the Congress from doing what it did in 1974 when it limited the number of troops that could be present in Vietnam.  The Murray resolution likewise says that Congress will take no action endangering the troops and would ensure that troops get the care they deserve once home from the battlefield.  These are obvious points, Specter said, and no one will disagree with them.

He said that Congress needs to go back to the drawingboard on pinpointing its role in the Iraq debate.  He said he wanted to get some reports from the Dept. of Defense as to whether the troop surge was beginning to work.  He said he asked the Depts of Defense and State for such reports but got nothing.  He said that we probably need to engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria, which might lead to the kind of success we garnered recently through direct talks w/ North Korea.  He said he would not support an indefinite presence in Iraq but that the current resolutions weren't going to help us figure out what to do in Iraq.  He wants hard facts on the success of the surge and then go from there.


[11:54]
A quick update on Iraq rhetoric uttered today on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

James Inhofe (OK) is managing floor time for the minority.  With his time he chose to spoke about how horrible Saddam Hussein was (is?).  The way he talked you would have thought the U.S. was still trying to bring him down.  Inhofe talked about how he went to Kuwait in 1991 or so with the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. and the Ambassador's little girl.  They went to the Ambassador's house when they got to Kuwait.  Saddam had used it as a headquarters in Kuwait.  The little girl's room had been used as a torture chamber and there were body parts strewn about the room and hair and hands sticking to the walls.  The little girl wanted to see her dolls.  Saddam was brutal, Inhofe said.  He fed people into shredders, etc., etc.  And, oh yeah, there WERE weapons of mass destruction, Inhofe said, We know that because he used them etc. etc.  I don't know where Inhofe was going with all of this and it struck me that he is totally clueless as to what the Senate is debating.  It makes no sense to justify the current U.S. presence in Iraq (as the arbiter of a civil war) by talking about how terrible Saddam was.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX.  Hutchison spoke about the resolve of the United States, the Senate, and the American people.  Can you imagine, she asked, the Senate passing a resolution during World War II asking that U.S. troops be brought home?  And I'm thinking, No, I can't imagine that, why would I imagine that?  And how do you get off comparing Iraq to World War II?  Another Senator on another planet, talking about how we will "lose" the war if we draw down troops and Oh yeah, what message is this going to send to our troops if we vote to bring them home?  And I'm thinking, Who cares?  If they're being brought home they're probably going to be glad to be coming back home and even if they're pissed off that they're being brought home it's not like they're going to be less effective fighters because they wont' be fighting anymore.

Orrin Hatch (UT).  Hatch chose the Revolutionary War for his approach to contemplating our current struggle in Iraq.  Moral was bad too, then, when Washington was holed up in the Cold Winters of New Jersey but then Thomas Paine wrote this marvelous pamphlet called "Common Sense" and the country found its resolve and Washington fought hard at Princeton and Trenton etc. etc.  And we won our freedom!!!




Preview:
The Senate begins early, at 9:30 a.m. e.d.t.  A period of morning business will precede resumed consideration of S.J.Res.9, a joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

March 14, 2007:  Iraq Resolution Debate In Senate; Vote on Motion to Proceed Imminent


[13:25]
The motion to proceed to full debate on the Iraq War passed with an 89-9 vote.  Republicans voting against the motion to proceed included: Allard, Bond, Bunning, Coburn, Cornyn, DeMint, Enzi, Hatch, Inhofe, and Thomas.

Since the motion to proceed passed, senators have taken to the floor, with up to ten minutes to speak on the Reid Iraq Resolution.  The resolution calls for troops to begin leaving Iraq in 120 days, with all troops out by March 2008 (except for troops remaining for training purposes and other limited missions).


[11:27]
The Senate is voting on a motion to proceed to debate on the measure.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) indicated it would pass.  As the votes are read, it sounds like most senators are voting to proceed to debate.  So far, the votes against proceeding to debate are: Bond, Bunning, Enzi.


[10:30]
The Senate is in the midst of one hour of debate concerning the Reid Resolution concerning U.S. policy on the Iraq war.  The Resolution calls for troops to be pulled out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, excepting some missions.

So far the following senators have spoken on the floor:

McCain (AZ)
Biden (DE)
Levin (MI)
Alexander (TN)
Reed (RI)

Both Republicans voiced opposition to the resolution.  Lamar Alexander (TN) opposes the resolution but said that it's time the President pulled the Iraq Study Group Report off of his shelf and used it for something other than a book-end.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

March 13, 2007:  Roll Call Votes for Amendments to 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill


Senate will convene at 10:00 e.d.t. in order to consider a Reid resolution, S.J.Res.9, to revise United States policy on Iraq.  This will be another test of the sixty votes needed to proceed.

Earlier, the Senate passed the September 11th Commission Recommendations bill late this afternoon by a 60-38 margin.  All Democrats voted in favor of the legislation.  They were joined by Republicans Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Smith (OR), Voinovich (OH), Stevens (AK), Specter (PA), Bond (MO), Dole (NC), and Murkowski (AK).

Prior to the vote on the bill's final passage, senators tabled three amendments via voice vote.  The last one, a Biden (DE) amendment, would have ensured that toxic waste freight shipments coursed through rural areas.  It was opposed by states with more rural areas, falling 73-25.

The most interesting vote of the day concerned a Coburn Amendment seeking to subject the Department of Homeland Security to the 2002 Improper Payments Act.  It was a mixed vote, tabling the amendment 73-25.  What is fascinating about it are the Democrats that joined Republicans: Feingold (WI), McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT), Brown (OH), Nelson (FL), and Webb (VA).  Note the freshman Dem senators joining Republicans on this amendment aimed at cutting government wasteful spending.


[15:17]
The Senate is back from lunch and will vote on at least one more amendment this afternoon.  Chuck Schumer (NY) spoke about the Justice Department's firing of several U.S. attorneys earlier this year, firings which it now appears were politically motivated.  He reiterated the Senate's interest in the matter and concluded by saying that he would not let the issue die.  Schumer, Feinstein (CA), Leahy (VT), and Specter (PA) have all voiced dismay about the firings.

In addition to a Biden (DE) amendment prescribing rural routes for truck shipments of toxic waste, there are one or two Schumer amendments to the bill that haven't been processed (slated for a voice vote or added to the en bloc "manager's amendment").  So the Senate is in quorum call at the moment until all the backroom wrangling for the bill is finally completed.


[12:34]
The Senate has recessed until 14:15 e.d.t.  When it returns, the Senate will vote on the remaining germane amendments to the bill.  Then it will vote on final passage.  There is still a hang-up, though, with the package of amendments slated to be passed with a simple voice vote (i.e. unanimous consent).  One senator is still objecting to the package.

And it sounds like the Senate will debate some Iraq resolutions as soon as tomorrow.


[12:10]
The Coburn Amendment to sunset the bill has been tabled, with 60 ayes.

Now a vote on a second Coburn Amendment, which would subject DHS to the Improper Payments Act.  Coburn says that it would send a message to all gov't agencies that they too do not have to comply with the act.  Detractors say it will cut off some funding to DHS.  Coburn says, no, not for 18 months.  There was another version of this amendment, a second-degree amendment, but because the bill is in a post-cloture phase, that amendment can't now be considered.  It sounds like that second-degree amendment would have passed; this one won't.

Lots of senators milling around on the floor.


[11:48]
Right now the Senate is in the midst of a vote on the first of two Coburn amendments that will receive a voice vote.  The first amendment would sunset the bill in 2013 (repeal it automatically unless Congress votes to renew it).  The second bill would subject the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the 2002 Improper Payments Act.  Senators Carper (DE) and Collins (ME) either expressed support for "the right idea" or expressed "sympathy" for what the amendment was trying to do, yet both said that the amendment wasn't quite right and that they would vote against it.  Coburn said that the bill would cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money within the department; most other federal agencies are subject to the Improper Payments Act.  This first vote is on a motion to table the sunset amendment, so a yes vote is a vote to kill the amendment.  So far, it sounds party line except for Leahy (VT) voting against tabling and Specter (PA) voting for it.


Earlier:

Sherrod Brown (OH) spoke in favor of reworking the country's trade policy to make it more "fair" less "free".

Charles Grassley (IA) talked about the "tax gap."  This is money that taxpayers, whether human or corporate, owe to the government but don't pay (illegally).  He talked about how the tax gap was "like the weather" because everyone talked about it but no one tried to do anything about it.  And I'm thinking, What CAN anyone do about the weather.  Grassley was wearing this awful tie.  Then he was talkign about how the tax gap was like the "exilirs" that they tried to sell you in the Old West.  He meant to say "elixirs."  "Exilirs" is not a word.  Grassley is really starting to grate on me.  I muted the TV after a point.  I saw Susan Collins (ME) on the screen, turned the volume back up, and Grassley was griping about having his speech cut off saying something like "I wish people would get things straight around here; If I'm told I can come down and make my speech, I wanna be able to make my speech; If there wasn't enough time I could have waited."  Good old Chuckie G.  Collins must have objected to his request for a couple add'l minutes to finish his speech on the tax gap and magic exilirs.

Monday, March 12, 2007

March 12, 2007:  Resume Work on 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill


(P)review:
At 14:30 e.d.t., the Senate will convene, beginning with a period of morning business, and moving from there to further consideration of the September 11th Commission Recommendations Bill.  Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) indicated on Friday that there would not be any roll-call votes today.

What to look for: Have senate leaders and managers of the bill reached an agreement over the weekend to make way for unanimous-consent passage of a package of non-controversial amendments to the bill?  One or two senators had held up passage of this package because their individual amendments were not on the list.  Further, how many amendments will come up for a voice vote before the Senate votes on final passage of the bill?

Friday, March 09, 2007

March 9, 2007:  Senators Must Reach Deals on Amendments to Clear 9/11 Commission Package


[10:45]
Quorum call for the last half hour or so.  There will be no more votes today.  None Monday either.  Votes pick up on Tuesday when the Dem leadership, and the managers of the bill, hope to vote on the remaining germane amendments.  The non-controversial amendments are still held up by one or two senators who cannot get their amendments voted on and are trying to hold out.  There are about thirty amendments set to be approved by unanimous consent/voice vote, as soon as those hold-out senators give up or give in.  It's unclear who or what will come to the floor for the remaining part of the day.


[9:53]
Now a second cloture vote, this time on the Reid substitute, which is essentially the underlying bill itself.  An "aye" vote is a vote to proceed with the legislation, limiting further debate.

Cloture is met, 69 yea votes.


[9:50]
The Senate is voting for cloture on a Cornyn Amendment to the underlying bill.  It sounds mostly party-line, except Bayh (IN) voted for cloture.  Otherwise, Dems are voting no, which is a vote against limiting debate on the amendment.  The Dem leadership probably granted this amendment a vote as part of a package deal.  Cloture will not pass for this amendment; more votes to follow.

46 yea, 49 nay, motion not agreed to.


(P)review:
The Senate starts early today, 9:15 e.s.t.  It will work to clear remaining amendments to S.4, the September 11th Commission Recommendations Bill.  There will be one package of non-controversial amendments that will be offered and passed by voice vote.  Then there will be a group of controversial amendments that will be put to a roll-call vote.  However, senators whose amendment(s) don't show up on one list or the other can block the non-controversial package from being passed (the request to consider them is done by unanimous consent).  This appeared to be what held up progress on the bill in the Senate yesterday.

Then there's Iraq.  Yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) agreed to let a Gregg Amendment concerning funding for military missions come to a vote along with a bevy of other Iraq resolutions/bills.  Republicans have been blocking Democrat efforts to debate Iraq in the Senate based on Democratic refusal to allow this Gregg Amendment to come to a vote.  But when Reid conceded yesterday, the Republicans still objected to what Reid was offering.

That said, some things have changed since the Senate last tried to reach a deal on debating Iraq.  It appears that Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will now attempt to attach binding conditional language to the War Supplemental funding package that is scheduled to move through the Capital in a few weeks.  This language sets an August 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, albeit with several exceptions built in.  Most likely, with this binding language looming, Republican leaders would rather put off the entire debate until this binding language is considered in the context of Supplemental Funding debate.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

March 8, 2007:  Republican Leadership Dodges Offer on Iraq Debate; Consideration of Amendments to 9/11 Commissions Bill


[20:29]
Senate is done for the day.  Cloture vote(s) tomorrow morning, but this legislation has slowed down.  Weekend work is possible.  Tomorrow's work begins bright and early, 9:15 e.s.t.



[18:14]
Quorum call here.  C-SPAN2 reporting by way of Congressional Quarterly that September 11th Families have gotten involved in steering this 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill.  The Families lobbied Repub leader McConnell to support a clean bill (something like what the House passed).  Further, the Families warned McConnell and the Repubs against offering cumbersome amendments that will/would bog down the legislation and perhaps impeded its final passage.

All I can say is, there was supposed to be a vote today (this afternoon?) on a Cornyn package of amendments, and that has not happened—there have been no votes today.  Lots of back room dealing, could go late tonight.  The Senate and dinner make a great combo, even better the Senate and a digestif.


[17:05]
Now Barbara Boxer (CA).  She says, basically, the Republicans wanted a vote on the Gregg Amendment, our leader (Reid) said Fine, we'll give you a vote on Gregg.  But now that's not good enough.  Boxer went on to examine what it means when we say we have to "love the troops."  I think what she was really saying was, What do we mean when we talk about "supporting the troops."  Love the troops; I've never heard of that.  She was taking on "support the troops" but indirectly by talking about "loving the troops".  Strange.  Anyway, she talked about how she is teaming with Lieberman, with whom she clashes, admittedly, on Iraq policy, but they are teaming to tackle the issue of troops and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).  She says it's not acceptable to send troops afflicted with PTSD back out into the field armed with a bottle of anti-depressants (Zoloft, Paxil, etc.)  That's like giving an amputee a bottle of aspirin and sending them back out into the field, she says.  


[17:01]
Reid: Any bags that were packed for weekend travel can be put away.  We could have as many as three cloture votes this weekend, he says.

Now Mitch McConnell.  Yes, the Iraq debate is coming; the Iraq debate, though, "is about supporting the troops."  He says that they'll debate Iraq in a couple of weeks when they debate the Iraq/Terror supplemental.  Are we gonna have an Iraq debate and then have another Iraq debate, he wonders.  And about the status of the war: he observes that we have not been attacked again since 9/11 and that it's no coincidence that we haven't been attacked while we've been on the offense in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We're going to support the troops, he says.  We'll have that debate, at the latest, in the context of the supplemental.


[16:52]
Reid and others are now on the floor.  He offers this proposal on Iraq debate: Monday: SJ Res 9; S res 101; S con res etc.;  These are all of the Iraq resolutions, from Warner to Gregg to House to McCain....  There would be six hours set aside for debating them on Monday.  Six more hours on Tuesday, then votes on all of them.  That is what Reid is now propounding.

McConnell (KY, minority leader) reserves right to object.  These resolutions go back three weeks now, he says.  He is objecting.

It seemed that Reid was offering the Repubs exactly what they asked for in past weeks: votes on McCain, and most importantly, the STICKING POINT, the Gregg Amendment.  Now Reid offers the Repubs a vote on Gregg and the Repubs object!  Reid says that the Repubs have changed their stance, calls the Gregg Amdt, a "feel good" amendment.  Is perplexed as to why the Repubs have objected to this.



[16:45]
Dorgan asks Susan Collins (ME) what is going on with his amendment.  She says that there is a negotiation in the back rooms where the "two sides" are sitting down with the list of amendments, trying to put together two lists: (1) a list for packaging a bunch of amendments together for a unanimous consent requests (voice vote, non-controversial); and (2) a list for roll-call votes.  She says Dorgan's amendment is on one of those lists.

Dorgan says, That's great, I didn't think it was.  Collins says that the lists are not done because one or more senators are not consenting to the UC package because he and/or she is not satisfied with the package.  Then Trent Lott comes out of nowhere and says, "Is it too late to object to the Senator's amendment?"  I think this was actually a joke.  Lott is a bit of a trickster.  Dorgan cracked a smile and made some off-hand joke about the senate have "professional objectors."  Collins agreed.  Lott is still on the floor; the senate is in quorum call but I can see him talking to Collins.  Dorgan concluded by saying that the way the senate works is that one senator can hold up an entire bill, just like how the confirmation of assistant secretary of the interior passed this week 87-1 after being held up for months, because one senator (Vitter, LA, the one senator to vote nay) was holding up the nomination.


[16:34]
Byron Dorgan, ND.  He has tried to have an amendment concerning al Qaeda get a vote, but it won't come to a vote, it seems.  It requires a classified report be presented to Congress every six months concerning al Qaeda—where is bin Laden, etc.


[16:13]
Quorum call.  Some good, classical music.  C-SPAN2 voiceover informs me that there will be a vote on a Cornyn Amendment later today, the amendment itself an amalgamation of five Republican amendments.  Further, Majority leader Reid will motion for a cloture vote on the bill (specifically, a "substitute" amendment) tomorrow morning.  Reid wants to get the bill done this week and if the Senate has to convene on Saturday to get the bill done, it will.


[15:52]
Bernie says his speech is meant to be an overview of the economy.  He is introducing a National Priorities Act, which will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans and cut Pentagon funding by $60b.  It would re-direct that money for education, health care, Pell Grants and other programs, incentives for investment in alternative energy & rail, affordable housing, earned income tax credit, and deficit reduction ($30b).  Bernie says, This legislation will not be passed tomorrow, probably not even the next day.  But it provides Congress with a blueprint, and it asks us, Which side are we on?  This legislation gives us the money to do the things we are always talking about doing, veterans' health care for instance.


[15:30]
Bernie Sanders (VT) is calling on the Senate to address the growing gap between rich and poor when it passes a budget for FY 2008.  He says that the Senate should repeal the Bush tax cuts that go to help the richest 1% of Americans.  He says that the Senate should take a hard look at the Pentagon; that the Senate should not continue to fund weapons systems that were made to fight the Soviets; that the Senate should fund the Pentagon to fight al Qaeda.  Five million Americans have slipped into poverty since Bush came into office, he says.  Then applause broke out from the gallery.  The gallery was admonished by the president (Klobuchar) not to show signs of appreciation, even though I know you want to.  Sanders, who sits on the budget committee, says that every week someone from the White House tells the budget committe that the tax cuts are working and that the economy is doing well.  He is not so sure that the people of Vermont would agree.  Now he is talking about health care, who has it, who don't.  We're gonna have to take on the insurance companies, he says, we're gonna have to take on the mulitnational corporations that benefit, he says.  More and more small businesses cannot afford health care for their employees, he says.  He is particularly concerned about the price of dental care.  Tooth decay and dental care are big issues in Vermont, he says.  We can do better than having kids with teeth rotting in their mouths.  Now he is talking about college education.  Bernie's speeches are sweeping wide these days.


[14:53]
The Senate is in a quorum call.  Larry Craig (ID) spoke earlier.  He is the ranking member on the Veterans Affairs Committee.  He proposed allowing service-connected, disabled vets be allowed to seek care at any hospital in the country, not just VA hospitals, but any hospital in the private sector.  The government would pick up the tab.  He is betting that vets would not rush out of VA hospitals because vets are satisfied with the care at VA hospitals.


[13:37]
The Senate is in a quorum call; no one has spoken since Graham.


[13:07]
Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) is debating the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act, which Congress passed last year.  He is debating Arlen Specter (PA), who believes portions of the act are unconstitutional.  Graham says that the act is constitutional, despite its refusal to extend habeas corpus to enemy combatants held by the military in a place like Guantanamo Bay.  I am not sure why the senators are debating this topic right now; Specter might have an amendment for the 9/11 Commission bill that seeks to "patch" the Miltary Commissions Act (as he sees it).  As you might recall, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the Military Commissions Act; it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the case.  Specter is talking about how, in that case, the name of a source of evidence was allowed not to be disclosed.  Graham says that the question is whether or not enemy combatants have the constitutional right of habeas corpus (the right to come before a civilian court).  Specter reads a Supreme Court case from last summer (Rasul) as verifying that non-citizen enemy combatants have this right.  Graham says that Rasul did not reach such a finding.


[11:21]
The Senate is in a quorum call right now.  Earlier, Isakson (GA) spoke in favor of a Cornyn Amendment; Durbin (IL) spoke on Darfur; and Lieberman (CT) spoke about the pending bill, which he is managing for the majority.


(P)review:
The Senate will be working throughout the day on the September 11th Commission Recommendations Bill, S.4.  Yesterday the Senate votes on three amendments—passing one, rejecting one, tabling another. The Senate passed a McCaskill (MO) amendment that purports "to provide appeal rights and employee engagement mechanisms for passenger and property screeners."  Voting in favor of the labor-friendly amendment was every single Democrat and one Republican, that's right, Arlie Speck Speck, a.k.a. Arlen Specter (PA).  The Collins Amendment, a sort of yin for the McCaskill Amendment's yang, and which purported "to provide certain employment rights and an employee engagement mechanism for passenger and property screeners, and for other purposes," received only 47 votes, all Republicans.  Opposing it were Dems and Repubs Specter and Jim Bunning (KY).  Finally a Coburn (OK) Amendment was tabled by 71 votes; it would have "authorize(d) funding for the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grants program, to require the Secretary to examine the possibility of allowing commercial entities to develop public safety communications networks, and for other purposes."  A healthy dose of Republicans joined Dems to kill it.

A busy day for the Senate yesterday, with three votes and Kind Abdullah of Jordan addressing a joint session of Congress.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

March 6, 2007:  Big States versus Little States in the Battle for Homeland Security Funding


[18:17]
Now the Leahy Amendment, which increases the minimum allocation to each state.  Needs 51 votes to pass.  It gets only 49 ayes, 50 nays.  None of the three amendments just voted on passed.  Now Reid is laying out tomorrow's schedule.  More votes tomorrow.  McCaskill Amendment, some non-germane amendments.  Possibly a cloture vote on Friday.


[17:56]
Second vote of three consecutive votes is on an Obama Amendment, #338.  This amendment seems to place risk-based funding somewhere between the now departed Feinstein amendment and the current language in the bill.  Obama (IL) says that there are some losers under this bill, but that 34 states would do better.  Here the minimum is .25% for each state unless a state is a border state in which case its minimum is .45%.  Senator Lieberman, managing this bill for the majority, opposes the amendment, saying it would dock current funding levels for 32 states.  This is another vote on a motion to table the Amendment.  Here we go:

Obama Amdt. is tabled with 59 ayes.



[17:38]
First, the Senate is voting to table the Feinstein Amendment, which changes the way risk-based Homeland Security funds are doled out to states.  Fifty votes needed to table the amendment.  The outcome:

Motion to table Feinstein Amdt. is agreed to, with 56 ayes


[17:04]
Feinstein (CA) and Leahy (VT) agree on who would win or lose under the Feinstein/Cornyn Homeland Security funding amendment.  Feinstein says a whole bunch of states will get more money than they currently do under her amendment; Leahy says a whole host of states will lose out.  She says her numbers came from the Congressional Research service.  Who knows.  She is arguing that money should be allocated based on threat.  That if the biggest threat is in Vermont, than Vermont should get the money, but that's not what the intelligence shows.


[16:56]
There are going to be three votes on amendments to the 9/11 Commissions Recommendations Bill starting at 17:30.  At least one will be on the Cornyn/Feinstein Amendment, another will be on the Leahy/Thomas Amendment.  Both amendments concern how Homeland Security funds are allocated.  The struggle is not red state/blue state but big state/small state.  Senator Craig Thomas (WY) earlier pointed out that Wyoming is the leading energy exporter in the lower 48 states; that it is not just a flyover for those taking trips to and from coastal states.  Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) is speaking right now to warn a long list of states that he says will lose or break even under the Cornyn/Feinstein amendment.

It has been a decent afternoon of action in the Senate.  Earlier, Jay Rockefeller (WV) made a unanimous consent request to call up for consideration and passage the FY 2007 Intelligence Authorization bill.  Note, this is an FY 2007 authorization; a bill the previous Senate did not get passed; FY 2007 ends in September.  The request was objected to by Senator Collins ON BEHALF of another senator, who remained nameless.  Rockefeller admitted that he was angry and dismayed that one senator, one senator would hold up passage of a badly needed authorization bill.  He was joined by Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Kit Bond (MO) who lamented the hold one senator had placed on the FY 2007 Intelligence authorization bill.  Anyone know who this nameless senator might be?  I figure if it was Collins that objected, a Republican, the senator must also be Republican.  And, Rockefeller talked about this senator's constituents as "his constituents, if it is a he."  So I figure it is a male Republican.  But that doesn't really narrow it down.  This whole business of blind holds is silly.


[12:48]
Senate is at recess; will be back at 14:30.


[12:07]
With news of Libby guilty verdicts breaking, the Senate is voting on the DeMint Amendment, which would remove from the bill language allowing federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees to organize for collective bargaining purposes.  The vote is on a motion to table.  Expect party line vote, with Dems voting "aye" to table and Repubs the opposite.

The motion is agreed to with 51 votes.  Someone crossed the party line but I missed who!  Otherwise, it sounded something like 50 Dems and 1 Repub.  This means that the bill, if passed, would give airport screeners the right to unionize.  This language could draw a Bush veto of the entire bill, according to DeMint.


[10:05]
One hour of morning business, the time equally divided.


[10:01]
Senate is in session.  At twelve e.s.t. a vote on a motion to table the DeMint argument regarding collective bargaining for TSA employees.  After that vote, recess until 14:30 for party lunches.  Tomorrow, King Abdullah of Jordan will address a joint session of Congress.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) speaking.  He listens to the news each morning, and heard this morning about nine U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday.  The current approach isn't working; we need to change course in Iraq; I yield the floor.

Now a period of morning business.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Monday, March 5, 2007:  
Return to Consideration of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill; Iran Bill Draws Inappropriate Applause from Gallery


[19:20]
Reid is wrapping up today's business.  There are 31 pending amendments.  There are a few humps to get over.  He will move to table the DeMint amendment (collective bargaining for TSA employees).  Immigration amendments are out there but he wants to see them handled as one big bill not piecemeal.  The Senate will come in tomorrow at 10:00 am; then an hour of morning business; then a vote on the motion to table the DeMint amendment.  Then work on 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill all day Wednesday.  The Senate has gaveled out.


[17:31]
Jim DeMint, SC.  Senator DeMint is speaking in opposition to the McCaskill Amendment regarding organization of TSA employees.  He says that allowing TSA employees to organize would mean that security decisions could be held up by union efforts.  In other words, the amendment would "force TSA to bargain with unions" with respect to security decisions, something DeMint sees as potentially damaging to national security. He says that this amendment does nothing to implement the 9/11 Commission's Recommendations and might in fact make it more likely that we have another September 11th.  Further, President Bush is likely to veto the bill if it contains a provision allowing TSA employees to organize.  A vote for the amendment is a political vote for labor unions, not a vote for security.

[17:03]
Bob Menendez, NJ.  Menendez also supports the Feinstein/Cornyn Amdt. to ensure that HS funding is allocated to states based on risk assessments.  This is a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, he says, and to this day it has been ignored.  We need to dole out funds based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.


[16:55]
Bob Casey, PA.  He says that although this bill is perfect in just about every way, it still gets the funding allocation wrong.  Casey wants to see funds allocated based on risk, not a formula dishing out to each state an equal share.  This share is something like .75% as a minimum starting point for every state.  He is co-sponsoring the Cornyn/Feinstein amendment, which lowers that minimum to .25%.  Under the current bill language, 62% of funding is allocated based on risk.  The Amendment changes the bill so that 87% of Homeland Security funding is based on risk.


[16:41]
Charles Schumer, NY.  He is arguing that the cities highest at risk should get a disproportionate amount of funding.  NYC and DC, namely.  He is talking about how in the last round of HS funding NYC and DC had their allocations cut.  He cites NYC's necessary decision to cut patrols on the Brooklyn Bridge.  He is offering an amendment that would lower the minimums allocated to each state, thus freeing up more money for the big states (CA, TX, NY).  This funding battle is a matter of urban vs. rural, and blurs party lines.


[16:30]
Senator Lieberman spoke at length regarding the formulae employed for dividing up Homeland Security funding.  He tried to indicate that everyone would get some of the money but that urban areas would be allocated plenty based on risk.  Still, those cities who believe they are at highest risk (NYC and DC) are clamoring for a bigger slice.


[15:10]
Joe Lieberman, CT.  He is going over the schedule.  They want to finish S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill, by the end of the week.  Two big votes coming up soon will be on (1) a motion to strike a portion of the bill that gives bargaining rights to employees of the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA); and (2) the language in the bill describing how Homeland Security funds are doled out.


[14:44]
And then a round of applause rang out from the galleries, which I can't say I've ever heard before.  The President (McCaskill) rang the gavel and said, "The galleries will refrain—it is not appropriate to show signs of appreciation."  That is the rule of the Senate.  An odd occurrence to be sure; there must have been some group up there that knew Webb was going to offer the bill and plotted to pack the gallery and applaud.


[14:29]
Jim Webb, VA.  He is introducing a bill that requires Congressional authorization before any U.S. funds be expended in supporting military operations against Iran.  There are exceptions for "hot pursuit" and intelligence gathering.  The bill will not take any military option off of the table, he says.  But it represents Congress's intent to re-enter a Constitutional argument that has been absent from public debate.  Absent a direct attack or a clearly imminent threat, Webb says, the place to debate whether or not to go to war is the halls of Congress, not the White House.


[14:10]
John Cornyn, TX.  Wants to know how many minutes are—the Senate is in a quorum call, says the President (McCaskill)—I beg your pardon, I ask that the quorum call be rescinded.  Without objection.

He will talk about Homeland Security grant funding.  The amendment he likes is the one that dishes out funding based on security concerns, and not divvied up based on pork-barrel politics.  Senator Feinstein also supports this bill.


[14:07]
Byron Dorgan, ND.  Giving a speech/presentation on (1) Walter Reed; (2) al Qaeda as the #1 terror threat, who we have forgotten, somtimes called Osama Been Forgotten.  So he has an amendment to 9/11 Commission bill that requires a bi-annual report on bin Laden and al Qaeda.  Where is he?  What's he doing?  He yields the floor, makes a point of order that a quorum is not present.  The clerk will call the roll.  Mr. Akaka...


The Senate will begin work today at 13:30 est.  At 15:00, it will return to consideration of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill, S.4.  There are now a bunch of amendments still to deal with, probably about 50 that have not yet been addressed in some way.  In its last meeting, the Senate approved by roll-call vote two amendments.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Friday, March 2, 2007:  Amendment to 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill


[13:02]
The Senate is done for the day.  It will return to action on Monday at 1:30 est.


(P)review:
The Senate will commence action at 9:30 est.  At 10:00 it will vote on two amendments to what is now called the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill, S.4.  One is a Sununu Amdt., the other is a Salazar Amdt.  More info to come as to what the amdenments do.  There was only one vote yesterday, in which 58 senators voted to table a Schumer amendment requiring that all shipping containers be scanned as they enter the U.S.  Under current law, only some containers are scanned.  Schumer wants all containers scanned because he fears that terrorists will smuggle a nuclear bomb into the country via shipping containers.  Only 38 votes to keep the amendment alive, mostly Dems but including Republicans: Specter (PA)...well, just Specter.  Dems voting to table (i.e. kill) the amdt. included: Akaka, Bingaman, Brown, Byrd, Carper, Cantwell, Conrad, Inouye, Landrieu, Lieberman, Murray, Nelson (FL), & Wyden.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

March 1, 2007:  Cargo Containers Amdt. is Tabled; More Votes Tomorrow


I caught little snippets of today's Senate action.  There was only one vote.  It concerned a Schumer amendment to the pending 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill that would have required each cargo shipping container entering the country to undergo screening.  Right now, not every shipping container is searched; rather only some containers are search based on some sort of algorithm that tries to identify the riskiest containers for searches.  Chuck Schumer (NY) has proposed this same type of legislation before, unsuccessfully.  Same result today.  It was tabled by 58 votes in favor of tabling, 38 against.  Follow the link to see who voted which way.

The Senate will come in bright and early (9:30 est) to continue voting on amendments to the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill (a.k.a. S.4).  At ten, the Senate will begin to vote on the first of two amendments.  A Salazar Amdt. and a Sununu Amdt.  After that the schedule is yet to be determined.

P/Review:
The Senate is already going.  Yesterday, the Senate voted on and approved two amendments to the Homeland Security Bill currently pending in the Senate.  Another amendment, to be considered today, proposes allowing Transportation Security Administration employees to unionize.  Right now Robert Bennett (UT) is speaking in opposition to this amendment.