Friday, December 21, 2007

On Guard Against Recess Appointments, Senate Will Not Sleep This Christmas

The Senate convenes at 9:30 today for a pro forma session. No business occurs during a pro forma session, the meeting is only perfunctory. Usually it means only one senator appears on the floor. Senate leadership will engage in a series of pro forma sessions over the holidays in order to block and Bush attempts to make recess appointments.

On his web site, majority leader Harry Reid (NV) states: "Between December 21, 2007 and January 22, 2008, the Senate will meet in a series of scheduled pro forma sessions."

Otherwise, the Senate returns for real on January 22, 2008 at 10:00.

The Senate will then proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the Majority controlling the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments, under a previous order. The first vote of the day is expected to occur at approximately 17:30.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Tuesday, December 18, 2007:  In two separate votes, Senate approves an omnibus spending package that includes supplemental war funds

[:09]
Trent Lott has just officially resigned from the U.S. Senate, a letter being read by the Senate’s presiding officer.

With that, the Senate is done for the night. Back at you at 11:30 tomorrow.

[23:45]
The Senate is in a quorum call. It’s a late one tonight.

[23:22]
Mike Enzi (WY) who just voted against the omnibus spending bill calls it an “ominous omnibus.”

He says that it is an appropriations bill that contains legislation, a muddying of Senate procedure in violation of Senate rules. We are supposed to mark up legislation in committee, he says.

The omnibus funds every government agency except for the Department of Defense, for which an appropriations FY 2008 bill is already law.

[22:41]
Here come the votes. The omnibus will pass. Nay votes include: DeMint, Enzi, McCaskill, Crapo, Coburn, Leahy, Isakson, Chambliss, Bayh, Ensign, Hagel, Burr, Voinovich, Barrasso, Allard, and Feingold.

The omnibus spending package FY 2008 (minus war funding, see below) passes 76-17 with one senator responding “present.”

[22:35]
The Senate is now voting on the FY 2008 Omnibus spending bill. It bears mention, though, that the Senate is voting on a version of the bill that does not contain an amendment securing $70b in supplementary war funding, which the Senate passed earlier tonight. Senate leadership clipped that amendment from the bill and sent it to the House so that the House could approve it. The House approved the omnibus spending package last night, but didn’t include supplementary war funding in their version of the mammoth federal spending package.

Presumably, the main portion of the bill and the supplementary war funding amendment will meet again for the first time in conference. Is this even constitutional?

The only way this maneuvering could fail is if senators vote down the omnibus spending bill (minus war funds) which they won’t. The House will pass the war funding easily.

DeMint (SC) railed on the omnibus bill as being full of pork (9,000 earmarks) and said that senators hadn’t had a chance to read it. It took six hours to print out, he said. Something like 1,400 pages?

[22:23]
Durbin comes back at DeMint’s accusation that Democrats are trying to sneak a huge bill containing mysterious provisions past the Senate.

“Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill?” interrupts DeMint.

Durbin asks for regular order.

Durbin says that DeMint had 46 hours and 8 minutes to read the bill online.

“Welcome to the world of the internet,” says Durbin. “Welcome to a Senate where we pass spending bills.”


[22:12]
There are a couple of upcoming votes yet tonight in the Senate.

I must admit confusion as to the war supplemental funding passed earlier tonight in the Senate. I was under the impression that the funding was passed as an amendment to the FY 2008 Omnibus spending bill.

According to Jim DeMint (SC), who is speaking now on the floor, the war supplemental funding ($70b for Iraq and Afghanistan) is separate from the omnibus spending bill.

DeMint is railing on the omnibus spending bill. He says it took six hours to print out and senators have no idea what’s in it. He says it’s got 9,000 earmarks in it. It contains “a number of ridiculous provisions that we’re just finding.”

DeMint exhorts his colleagues, “A vote against this spending bill is not a vote against the troops.”

So I’m figuring he knows something I don’t.

As DeMint began to speak, Richard Durbin (IL) asked if he could interrupt to poise a question and DeMint answered, “No, sir, I’d like to make my statement.”

He is not listing provisions he does not support. $10m for lawyers for illegal immigrants, for example.

I guess what DeMint was saying is that the war funding portion of the bill has, for the moment, been split from the omnibus spending and sent back to the House for approval. The Senate now votes on the package minus war funding while the House votes on war funding.

Thus the unusual result of a bifurcated bill that neither House will have voted on en toto.

[22:05]
Senators Johnny Isakson (GA) and Saxby Chambliss (GA) are talking on the floor about a provision in the just-passed omnibus spending bill that some senator slipped in late in the process. The Georgia senators are aggrieved because, as they explain it, the section (Division C, §134?) limits how states (or the Army Corps of Engineers?) are able to govern water management. Something like that. I know that the Georgia senators were active on the floor this fall when Georgia was facing water shortages, especially in and around Atlanta.

They noted that the provision was slipped in and fellow senators had no idea. They seem to be urging that the provision would be scrapped during upcoming conference on the bill.

[20:58]
The Senate is now turning to the matter of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). First it will vote on a version of the the AMT fix that is paid for. Max Baucus (MT) finance committee chairman admitted that he doesn't think that there are 60 votes to move the paid-for AMT fix past a procedural vote.

As I understand this paid-for version of the AMT, it contains provisions that will close up offshore tax haven loopholes in order to cover the loss of revenue resulting from the AMT patch.

Grassley is calling this vote "Groundhog Day," saying that the Senate has already rejected the idea of paid-for AMT. He notes that the Senate passed a version of the AMT fix that is not offset. So, he wonders, why are we voting on another version of the AMT fix that contains tax-raising offsets.

It should be said that offsets in the first version of the AMT fix went after money resulting from private equity profits. As I understand, this new version of the AMT fix goes after money that is sent offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.

[20:57]
The Senate voted earlier this hour to add $70b in supplementary war funding (Iraq and Afghanistan) to the Omnibus FY 2008 federal spending bill. The war spending supplement passed 70-25.

[20:47]
The Senate is now voting on a McConnell amendment to the omnibus federal spending bill. The amendment adds $70b to the bill for supplementary Iraq & Afghanistan funding. It needs 51 ayes to pass. Bush has threatened to veto the spending bill if the supplementary funding is not included, as it was not included in the House-passed version of the bill.

The amendment passed 70-25.

[13:11]
Work in the Senate this afternoon will focus on the omnibus spending package that the House passed yesterday. The House version of the appropriations package covers 14 executive agencies and includes supplementary funds for the war in Afghanistan. However, as it stands now it does not include supplemental Iraq funding. President Bush expects the Senate to add $40b or so as an Iraq supplemental. If the Senate does not add this money, Bush will likely veto the bill. The questions remains as to whether the House would pass an amended version of the bill that the Senate would be sending back to them.

[13:10]
The Senate has recessed for party meetings. It will return at 14:15. Lott spoke just before the recess, drawing applause from the chamber as he spoke on the Senate floor for perhaps the last time.

[10:46]
Last night, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) pulled a bill reworking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from the floor of the Senate. This was a surprising move. Earlier yesterday, a version of the bill containing retroactive immunity for telecomm companies complicit in illegal government spying passed a motion to proceed vote by 76-10.

It was then up to senators Russ Feingold (WI) and Chris Dodd (CT) to convince 58 other senators to add an amendment to the bill scrapping immunity. This would have been highly unlikely. But Dodd and Feingold argued against the immunity provision yesterday on the floor.

When Reid pulled the bill from the floor, Dodd cited a victory. It seems that Reid, for whatever reason, did not want to proceed with a bill containing the grant of immunity. Rather than have the Feingold/Dodd amendment lose in a roll call vote, Reid instead decided it was best not to have the vote at all.

So, with the FISA bill on the backburner for now, the Senate has spent the morning paying tribute to one-time majority leader Trent Lott (MS), who has announced that he will resign his Senate seat before the end of the year.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Thursday, December 13, 2007: Farm bill clears roadblock and senators boost fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years

[21:02]
The farm bill passed a final procedural hurdle this evening in the Senate, as senators invoked cloture on the bill in a 78-12 vote. Final passage of the bill itself is only a formality, likely to happen tomorrow. It has been quite a day for a Senate that just last week looked hopelessly stuck in gridlock. Back at you tomorrow at 9:00.

[18:48]
Energy reform passes 88-8.

[18:27]
The Senate is now voting on an energy bill that would raise fuel efficiency standards for the first time since 1975.

Voting against the bill are: Inhofe (OK), Kyl (AZ), Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), Hatch (UT), Enzi (NV), Barrasso (WY), and the lone Democratic nay, Stabenow (MI).

The Stabenow nay does not surprise me all that much, considering she represents Michigan. But earlier in the day she voted in favor of an even stronger version of the energy bill. The CAFE increase was in both versions of the bill so is this anything other than Stabenow taking a “nay” back to Detroit when she knew that the measure would pass? Did she vote “aye” only as a sign of solidarity with Democrats earlier in the day?

[18:24]
The Senate just passed by unanimous consent a continuing budget resolution that keeps the government running until Friday, December 21, 2007. The current CBR expires tomorrow. These CBRs are necessary when budgets are not in place for government agencies. Every year Congress must pass 12 appropriations bills or else those agencies without budgets cannot operate. For at least the last two years, very few of these appropriations bills have been signed into law. For FY 2008, Congress has passed only one budget bill.

This new one-week CBR buys Congressional leaders time to put the finishing touches on a massive $500b omnibus spending package that will enact the remaining 11 budgets not yet passed.

[18:20]
Majority leader Harry Reid (NV) says that he thinks the Senate can finish the farm bill this week. Only one amendment is holding it up, he says. And that’s an amendment about firefighters. It seems its supporter is refiusing to subject it to a 60 vote threshold. In that case, says Reid, he’ll have to file cloture on the amendment, leading to a Saturday vote. No one wants a Saturday vote, says Reid, but that’s where we’re at right now because we need to get the farm bill done this week.

Reid now talks about the energy bill, calling it a “split decision” but a “win for America.”

[18:08]
The Senate has moved away from farm bill votes and it now appears poised to pass an energy reform bill that would raise fuel efficiency standards for the first time since 1975.

Pete Domenici (NM) says that for the first time Detroit has indicated it thinks it can comply with a potential fuel economy increase. Domenici says that this bill reduces our dependence on foreign oil moreso than any other bill could.

[17:51]
Jim Inhofe (OK) doesn’t think that the rise in CAFE standards is that good of an idea. He believes it will make cars unsafe. He says that we're still in the U.S. and unlike western Europe "we can still make choices." I am wondering if people aren’t making a choice by passing a fuel efficiency increase. The Congress is still the people’s branch, isn’t it?

He notes that there is nothing in the bill for nuclear, clean coal, or refinery expansion. Inhofe will be voting against the bill.

[17:42]
Jeff Bingaman (NM) just spoke about the energy bill that is now ready to move ahead in the Senate. Gone from the bill are renewable fuel mandates for utility companies and a repeal of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to the tune of $21b.

Still in the legislation is an increase in the CAFE fuel efficiency standard for all cars, trucks, and SUVs. Specifically, all cars would have to get an average of 35 m.p.g. by 2020.

Also in the energy reform are a requirement that new federal buildings be built in a green fashion and a mandate requiring the production of renewable fuels to rise. Older gov’t buildings will be retrofitted. The Dept. of Energy will get a “solar wall.”

Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) is now speaking in favor of the bill although she does not do so "without reservations." She has reservations about the renewable fuels increases. Specifically, the bill calls for more ethanol production. Farmers are worried about the increased cost of feedstock (corn) that this mandate will cause.

Barbara Boxer (CA) laments the provisions that the Senate has cut from the bill but she says all in all, “Good job!”

[17:21]
The Senate is currently voting on a Craig Amendment that would scale back government’s right of eminent domain when it comes to agricultural land. Federal, state, or local governments would be prohibited from taking farmlands for the purpose of designating them open space.

This amendment fails.

The Senate has been voting on farm bill amendments throughout the day. Recently, a Brown-McCaskill-Durbin amendment dealing with crop insurance was defeated. Earlier today, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment limiting the maximum farm payment to $250k (down from $360k) lost out. That amendment also would have required farm program recipients from receiving money unless they were “actively engaged” in farming. Considering that this was a bipartisan amendment, its defeat was a surprise.

None of these farm bill amendment votes have been party line. There are plenty of both party on each side of these votes. I could try to explain it by the big state/small state paradigm or even farm state/city state but I can’t see that being very explicative either.

So too defeated was a Klobuchar amendment that would have prevented individuals who make $750k net per year from receiving payments under the farm bill.

[13:39]
Senators have been debating a farm bill amendment concerning crop insurance. Shortly they will vote on the amendment.

[10:44]
When the energy reform bill came over from the House, it had three major pieces. I am simplifying things but bear with me. These three pieces were: one, an increase in fuel economy standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs (the so-called CAFE standards); two, an elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas companies meant to incentivize exploration; three, a mandate requiring utilities to produce a certain percent of their energy in renewable form by a certain date.

The first piece to fall out what the renewable energy mandate for utilities. Democrats dropped this piece when the energy bill suffered its first setback, failing to get 60 votes to proceed to debate.

Today, the effort to eliminate a $21b package of oil and gas company tax breaks will be dropped from the bill after the bill once again failed to garner 60 votes in a procedural vote (it got 59). The only no-vote was John McCain (AZ). It is unclear whether he would have votes “aye” had he been there. He is an outspoken advocate of global warming initiatives but perhaps not interested in oil company tax increases.

President Bush would have vetoed the bill had it come to his desk with the provision repealing oil and gas company tax breaks.

The only Democrat to vote against the increase was Mary Landrieu (LA).

Republicans voting in favor of the second iteration of the bill included John Thune (SD), Susan Collins (ME), Gordon Smith (OR), Norm Coleman (MN), Charles Grassley (IA), Dick Lugar (IN), Orrin Hatch (UT), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Olympia Snowe (ME).

The good news is that lawmakers are now poised to pass the first fuel economy increase in thirty years. Senate passage of the increased CAFE standards could come at anytime this week or the next.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Wednesday, December 12, 2007:
Debate on farm bill amendments runs far afield

[15:04]
Since Gregg spoke in favor of the amendment and Boxer in opposition, Hutchison (TX) and Sununu (NH) have voiced their support while Leahy (VT) argued against adopting the amendment.

[14:37]
Barbara Boxer (CA) takes exception to the amendment. She wonders what bill the Senate is working on. I thought we were on a farm bill but I come to the floor and hear about pregnant women and babies, she says.

Boxer characterizes the Gregg amendment as “an attack on women.” Why are you using the farm bill to attack women? she asks.

Boxer says that OB-GYNs are her heroes, that doctors are her heroes but that doctors make mistakes. She relates an anecdote about a doctor butchering a delivery and then telling a mother that the baby is disabled because the mother’s DNA is tainted. And says, Mother, if you have any more kids, they’ll be disabled, too?

Boxer says, Should the mother just have to live with the mistakes of the physician? Or should we hold these physicians accountable? Anyone who votes for this amendment is saying to rural women, “You don’t matter.” They can say that this amendment is about trial lawyers, but it’s not. Don’t come here and say how wonderful you’re being to the women of America when you’re imposing a cap on how much they can get when they’re damaged, when they’re made sterile.

Boxer disputes the Texas statistics. She says it’s not true that more doctors have come to Texas in the wake of a Texas constitutional amendment capping non-economic damages.

I hope we have a very strong no vote and put this baby bed. I am just in disbelief that this is even before us, she says.

The Gregg amendment needs 60 votes to pass. Those are the terms of the deal that the party leaders worked out.

[14:29]
Judd Gregg (NH) was just talking about an amendment he is offering to the farm bill concerning frivolous lawsuits. You might wonder what frivolous lawsuits have to do with the farm bill. Gregg would tell you that OB-GYNs in rural areas are under attack from frivolous lawsuiteers. These frivolous lawsuits are driving OB-GYNs out of business in rural areas. Really, this amendment is very relevant and is aimed at helping women in rural areas. If we limit liability, all of the OB-GYNs that have left rural areas will return if this amendment is made law.

In reality, Gregg has a cabinet full of niche amendments that he shapes like Play-doh in order to argue that they are relevant to whatever piece of legislation moves through the Senate.

This amendment puts a cap on non-economic damages awarded in medical malpractice suits. It is somehow targeted at rural America. It would cap non-economic (i.e. punitive) damages at the greater of twice the economic damages or $250,000. Economic damages would include costs for things like additional medical care and loss of wages. Punitive damages are awarded for pain and suffering at the discretion of a jury as a means of heightening the impact of a plaintiff’s victory.

Gregg states that the amendment is modeled on the non-economic damages amendment that Texas voters made law in 2004. That amendment led to an increase in the number of OB-GYNs working in Texas, says Gregg.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Tuesday, December 11, 2007: Before beginning votes on farm bill amendments, senators debate domestic and war spending

[11:28]
Richard Lugar (IN) is speaking about his amendment to the farm bill that would effectively eliminate crop subsidies in lieu of expanded crop insurance. He has talked about how the U.S. is currently in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules against crop subsidization. For example, he said, Brazil will soon get the go-ahead to retaliate against the U.S. for this country’s violation of the WTO by way of cotton subsidies. Under the WTO rules, Brazil can retaliate against any U.S. industry; the counteraction need not be aimed at the U.S. farming industry. He wonders why the current legislation does nothing to bring the U.S. into compliance with WTO regulations. Apparently, his amendment would accomplish this by cutting crop subsidies. Farmers would benefit, though, by the increased offering of crop insurance.

[10:38]
Lindsey Graham (SC) is making an uncommon floor appearance to urge his colleagues to approve supplementary war funding for the conflicts in Iraq (and Afhganistan). He is talking mostly about Iraq. He says that The Surge has been enormously successful and will be regarded as the gold standard for counterinsurgency efforts going forward.

If you would have told me this time last year that we’d be moving Marines out of Anbar because the security situation warranted it, I’d’ve thought that was optimistic beyond belief. The biggest nightmare for al Qaeda has been the surge. Now it’s going to be a nightmare for the Shia extremist groups in Iraq. Graham says there will soon be an operation going after them.

We’re still acting around here as if nothing has changed in Iraq. That’s not true. Let us allow Petraeus to finish the job he has started. Victory is not achieved but it is possible.

Some people won’t give any money on Iraq unless we get another $11b for S-CHIP. Some people won’t give any money on Iraq unless we agree to withdraw troops by the end of next year. Graham, though, concedes that the political progress in Iraq is lacking.

[10:15]
Now John Cornyn (TX) on an omnibus spending package. He quotes the House’s Obey who said he didn’t want any linkage between domestic spending and war funding. Cornyn says, yeah, I agree with that. I don’t want necessary war spending linked with domestic pork projects either. Cornyn offers some sort of motion to proceed to a war spending bill and asks for its passage by unanimous consent.

Richard Durbin (IL) is on the floor and he objects.

[10:13]
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) speaks about the spending bills. He seems to say that the Democrats are still expecting the Republicans to capitulate and aren’t yet offering a true compromise. He said that debate could go back and forth with the House perhaps on end. He says, let’s show domestic responsibility and let’s fund our troops. So, Republicans are standing strong against the current spending package contemplated by the Democrats.

[10:03]
Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) says that Republicans have offered all of their 20 amendments and Democrats have offered five amendments. He says that the first vote today, on a Lautenberg amendment, will occur this afternoon, sometime after 14:15. That could be it for votes today. If so, there will be a bunch of votes tomorrow.

Reid says that senators Coburn and Gregg have offered several amendments. He said something about a Domenici amendment regarding renewable fuels. This amendment is apparently controversial. I will try to get more info on it.

As for the spending bill(s), Reid says he is not as hopeful as he once was. He is asking the other side to be reasonable, so that they can reach a common ground. He now says that Congress will have to pass another continuing budget resolution, perhaps only lasting for a matter of days. Reid must suspect that Congress and the President can agree on an omnibus spending package packaging the remaining eleven spending FY 2008 bills.

He also notes that work on FISA and a bipartisan compromise on the energy bill are necessary.

He goes on to talk about the CIA destruction of interrogation tapes. He says that the tapes probably showed Americans conducting “water torture.” Reid does not go so far as to echo Joe Biden’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Reid is willing to wait for a few days before he determines whether such an independent prosecutor is needed.

Precap

After weeks of filled trees and filibusters, the Senate will today begin voting on amendments to H.R. 2419, the farm bill. Senators reached a deal last week limiting each side to 20 amendments on the bill. It remains to be seen how many actual roll call votes will be necessary—certainly not 40.

Behind closed doors, members of both parties of both houses are trying to put together a mammoth omnibus spending package that probably also includes some supplementary war funding. This package would lump together the eleven of twelve FY 2008 appropriations bills that have not been made into law. Lumping the spending bills together is a common way to achieve package for the whole. There is something in it for everyone. Especially when legislators accede to White House wishes for Iraq and Afghanistan supplementary funding, somewhere in the $50-70b range. Consider how the White House demand for $196b has dwindled to the point that it is apparently happy to get a quarter of that.

Still, Rep. David Obey (WI), the House appropriations committee chairman, recognized that an apparent exchange of Presidential acquiescence on domestic spending in exchange for war funding would upset the anti-war contingent of the Democratic party. Nonetheless, that seems to be the working arrangement. Obey said forget this, we'll give the President his spending limits and we'll do it by stripping Republican spending out of the bill until we're at bare bones. Well, we'll see how much sway Obey has depending on how the spending impasse is resolved.

Keep in mind, though, that the current continuing budget resolution (CBR) expires this Friday, Dec. 14. If Congress cannot send some other measure such as an AMT fix to the President's desk by Friday, Congress will have to vote publicly on another CBR, which it is loathe to do.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Friday, December 7, 2007: While energy bill hits a snag, senators have agreed to proceed to debate on farm bill amendments

[15:11]
Majority leader Harry Reid (NV) is now on the floor. He has moved the chamber into executive session and the Senate just passed en bloc by a voice vote a few minor treaties concerning trademark and patent law.

Now he is passing through a resolution honoring some sort of achievement by young women.

Now passing through an extension of programs under the Small Business Act. All by unanimous consent.

Senate will adjourn until Monday at 15:30 when it will resume consideration of the Farm Bill. No roll call votes Monday.

Senate now stands in adjournment.

[14:35]
Tom Harkin (IA), chairman of the Agriculture committee, surmised this morning that it could take until January to finish work on the farm bill.

[14:32]
Pretty quiet in the Senate this afternoon. Lots of quorum call. Because there aren’t going to be any more votes this afternoon, the Senate has gone into a period of morning business during which senators can speak on any topic.

Senators are working off the floor on the farm bill. Each party can offer up to 20 amendments to the bill. Because more than 250 amendments had been filed on the bill, it’s going to take a lot of time to figure out whose amendments will make it to the floor. You can bet there are going to be some unhappy senators. It is always possible that a senator could revolt against the 20/20 agreement if his or her amendment doesn’t make the cut.

[11:10]
There won’t be any more votes today. Senators are invited to come to the floor to debate amendments to the farm bill.

[11:03]
The Senate now turns to the Farm Bill, H.R. 2419. Last night, senators announced a deal on a framework by which to debate the Farm Bill. As Tom Harkin (IA) just explained it on the floor, both sides have agreed that the tree would come down and both sides could offer up to 20 amendments on the bill.

The Senate appears poised to begin debating those amendments today. This is great news for anyone who wants to see the farm bill passed before Christmas recess.

[10:41]
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) is talking about reworking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Recall that the Congress hastily passed in August something called the Protect America Act, a revision of FISA that Whitehouse calls “a second-rate piece of legislation.”

Whitehouse observes that Americans traveling abroad can have their calls back home wiretapped under the current law. He says that the revision of FISA that the Senate will soon consider must address this problem. He is also talking about the zany legal theories coming out of the White House and George W. Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel.

[10:19]
Here comes the result of a motion for cloture on H.R. 6, the energy bill.

Yeas 53, nays 42. Sixty votes were necessary for cloture, measure is not agreed to.

The energy bill has suffered a setback in the Senate.

Republicans voting in favor of cloture: Thune (SD), Collins (ME), Smith (OR), and Snowe (ME).

Democrats voting against cloture: Bayh (IN), Byrd (WV), and Landrieu (LA).

This was not unexpected. Senators are probably holding out so that they can offer amendments to the House version of the bill.

Pete Domenici (NM), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, notes that he and Jeff Bingaman (NM), the committee’s chairman, will be working with senators to put together a package of amendments so that they can return to work on the bill as soon as Monday.

Jeff Sessions (AL) and Mary Landrieu (LA) both say that they voted against it not because they are opposed energy reform but because the bill needs some work before it can be passed. It was a positive sign for Sessions to state that the government needs to help bring about cleaner production of energy.

[10:14]So far, I have heard Robert Byrd (WV) vote against the bill. This is a bad sign. He is probably voting to protect the coal industry in his state. Will Levin and Stabenow from Michigan be on board with mandated fuel economy increases?

But Jay Rockefeller (WV) votes “aye.”

Mary Landrieu (LA) votes against it.

[10:09]The Senate is now voting on whether to move ahead with consideration of H.R. 6, an energy bill that the House passed yesterday 235-181.

Sixty votes are needed so that the Senate can begin debating the bill.

Among other things, the bill offers $21b in energy conservation tax incentives, offset by repealing subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

It requires utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

It raises the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (Café) standards for cars, light trucks, and SUVs to 35 m.p.g. by 2020.

The White House has issues a veto threat because it does not like the 2020 mandates. Nor does it like certain tax provisions in the bill.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Thursday, December 6, 2007:
Minority shows its power as Republican AMT fix goes through

[20:17]
The Senate has adjourned.

[20:13]
Earlier tonight (at 18:23) the Senate passed a one-year AMT patch by a vote of 88-5. The Democrats capitulated to a Republican filibuster and joined their colleagues to pass an amended version of HR 3996, the AMT patch.

Senate Republicans refused to agree to offset provisions in the House version that would have introduced higher taxes on private equity income to pay for the putative loss of AMT revenue.

Knowing that they could not afford to be seen as the party that subjected an additional 21 million taxpayers to the mutating AMT, Democrats abandoned their fealty to pay-go and passed a "clean" AMT fix.

As of this moment, I have been unable to determine what effect the Senate version of the bill would have on a package of tax credit extenders for things like research and development and teacher-bought school supplies. Does the Senate-passed bill address these extenders? If so, does it offset the cost of them? Anyone?

The House must now hold a vote on the Senate version of the AMT fix. If given a chance to vote on the Senate version, the House would easily pass it. The question, then, is whether House Speaker Pelosi will bring the measure to the floor of the House.

Hesitant to have themselves portrayed as abandoning their 2006 campaign pledge of "pay-as-you-go," some House Democrats have vowed to oppose an AMT fix that is not paid for with tax increases in other areas.

The House version offsets the loss of anticipated AMT revenue by treating income reaped from private equity ventures as ordinary income instead of capital gains.

It is arguable that a clean version of the AMT patch is not necessarily violative of the pay-go principle. Consider that the revenue anticipated by an AMT expansion has never been seen by the government. It's not as though the government is suddenly not receiving money that it is used to receiving. Democrats could point this out to mitigate their failure to pass offsets on the AMT fix.

Congress agreed to an Alternative Minimum Tax in 1969 as a way to ensnare rich taxpayers who were loading their returns with deductions in order to avoid a tax bill. Unfortunately, that original AMT legislation is not indexed for inflation.

Hey, $100k doesn't go as far as it used to.

Voting against the "clean" version of the AMT patch were Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Feingold, and Whitehouse.

Earlier today, a Republican filibuster withstood a cloture vote on the House-passed version. That filibuster forced Democrats to bring a clean version of the AMT fix to the Senate floor.

[17:27]Since this morning's vote against a proposed AMT patch, the Senate has been quiet. There have been some miscellaneous speeches from Murray, Casey, Klobuchar, and Stabenow but there isn't much work on the floor. Presumably, senators are working behind the scenes to reach an agreement to bring something to the floor. Right now Debbie Stabenow (MI) is talking about the numerous Republican filibusters this year. She notes that there will be a cloture vote on the Farm Bill tomorrow. This will be the second attempt to break a Republican filibuster of the Farm Bill.

Proposed AMT Fix Fails in Senate

Earlier today, Republican senators defeated a motion to limit debate and proceed to consideration of an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch that would have prevented the AMT from affecting more taxpayers this year than it did last year.

Needing sixty votes, the cloture motion received only 46.

Estimates are that the AMT could affect as many as 25 million taxpayers this year, while it reached only 4 million taxpayers last year. Senator Charles Grassley (IA) said that it ups the average taxpayer's bill by $2,000.

Republicans have opposed the House-passed one-year AMT fix because it offsets the putative loss of tax revenue by raising other taxes. I have not heard or read what these tax hikes would be.

So, there is an impasse on the AMT fix. Democrats say they will not pare back the AMT tax without paying for it. And Republicans refuse to agree to an AMT fix that raises other taxes.

The House-passed version includes not just an AMT fix but it also extends verious tax credits for teachers and research and development. Thus, the tax hikes attached to the AMT fix are in the total amount of $80b, $50b for the AMT and $30b for the so-called "extenders."

Max Baucus (MT), chairman of the finance committee, thought he had a deal worked out whereby the legislation would include $30b of new taxes to pay for the extenders but no offset for the AMT fix. He figured this could work as a compromise.

It doesn't seem anyone besides Baucus is very interested in that deal. Republicans still appear adamant in their refusal to entertain any sort of new tax and Democrats including the House Blue Dogs refuse to abandon the pay-go fiscal pledges that go them elected in 2006.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Wednesday, December 5, 2007:  Partisan tempers flare as the AMT fix goes broke and Republicans are accused of taking filibuster steroids

[18:51]
The Senate adjourned at 18:13. Meanwhile, the Environment and Public Works Committee just passed a global warming bill by a vote of 11-8. The measure is co-sponsored by Lieberman and Warner. Warner was the only Republican in committee to support it. Those Republicans voting against it were Craig, Bond, Inhofe, Voinovich, Isakson, Barrasso, Alexander, and Vitter.

The bill institutes a carbon emissions cap-and-trade regime aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and 70% by 2050. Who knows what the full Senate will do with this bill when it considers it on the floor sometime next year.

[17:30]
On another note, Daniel Akaka (HI) takes to the floor to congratulate the University of Hawaii football on an undefeated season. He says that the Warriors played tough teams from across the nation. In truth, Hawaii played a very weak schedule and faced only one team east of the Mississippi. Come on now, senator.

[17:24]
Now minority whip Dick Durbin (IL). He says that Republicans want to debate all kinds of things under the guise of the farm bill. He says that a senator from Alaska wanted to offer an amendment concerning Exxon Valdez spill litigation.

And as for the AMT, there is a Republican senator that wants to debate the flat tax. Durbin is flabbergasted. The flat tax!? We've got to debate the flat tax before we can fix the AMT!?

56 times this year the Republicans have created a filibuster situation, says Durbin. talk, talk, talk. Or in the modern era, recess, quorum call, recess, quorum call.

The Republicans are determined from stopping anything substantive from happening, he says. They want to stop up and then they want to blame us. They can't have it both ways.

[17:23]
Now Mitch McConnell (KY) minority leader on the AMT. McConnell says that he offered a consent agreement on AMT where the limit would be four amendments. But the majority didn't want to agree to that. He says that the Senate hasn't been doing anything today. We could have been working on the Farm Bill, he says.

[17:16]
Reid and Chambliss on the farm bill. Reid says, Harkin told me that you and he had agreed to 40 amendments, is that right? Chambliss responds, Well, we didn't quite agree on that. Reid cuts in. See, this is what always happens, the rope-a-dope. Nobody will agree to anything. Maybe the ranking member (Chambliss) simply doesn't want a bill. This is pretty pointed talk.

Reid now says that "the Republican are on steroids when it comes to filibusters."

I'm ready to bring this bill to the floor, says Chambliss. Senator Harkin and I didn't have any discussion about 40 amendments; I don't have any idea where that came from.

Now Reid says of Chambliss, respectfully, that he is "speaking out of both sides of his mouth." What is wrong with getting cloture on the farm bill and voting on germane amendments. We can't get any agreement because we're being rope-a-doped.

[17:07]
There will be another cloture motion on the Farm Bill, set for Friday morning. Reid wonders why the Republicans are blocking the Farm Bill. Maybe they don't care about it, he says. Maybe they're afraid that Democrats would claim passage of the bill as a victory. If cloture passes, then the tree would open back up but only germane amendments could be offered. What's wrong with that? asks Reid.

And, wow, he says that there could be a cloture vote Saturday on the Energy Bill (due to arrive tomorrow from the House). Senators should be advised of this possible Saturday vote, he says.

As for the AMT. Why don't we just vote on what the House passed? asks Reid. We can vote on that and then we can vote on the Lott proposal to get rid of the AMT. It'll cost about $1t but we'll vote on it, says Reid. The Democrats want to pay for the AMT and they want to vote on it. The Republicans won't agree to vote on AMT if it's paid for or half paid for, he says.

"If there is no AMT patch, then it's the fault of the Republicans," he says. "They won't vote on anything."

Chambliss (GA) shoots back on the Farm Bill. He regrets that Reid filed cloture on it. He says that the Senate has been working on the Farm Bill for five weeks and that if it had operated on an open-amendments basis, the Farm Bill would be in conference today.

[17:00]
Senate Majority Leader Reid is on the floor. He has called up a motion to proceed to the AMT bill. Now he has withdrawn that motion to proceed. His withdrawal of the motion to proceed means that there won't be a cloture vote tomorrow on the AMT patch, leaving it unclear as to when the Senate will proceed with an AMT fix.

The pending business becomes the farm bill. Clerk reports a cloture motion on the (Harkin substitute amendment to the) Farm Bill. Now Reid is talking about the Farm Bill and how he offered the Republicans a deal of a ten-amendment limit on the bill.

[16:52]
Ken Salazar (CO) is talking about the Farm Bill. As Salazar tells it, the Democrats most recently offered Republicans a deal whereby the Republicans could offer 10 floor amendments to the bill and the Democrats would offer five. The Republicans turned down this offer. Salazar ends by saying he is hopeful that the Farm Bill supporters can get the Farm Bill moving again on the floor.

Recall that Reid filled the tree on the Farm Bill preventing anyone from offering amendments to it. Reid said he did this because the Republicans were going to flood the bill with non-germane amendments on the estate tax and immigration. The bill failed to get 60 votes for cloture, leaving it stalled on the floor.

If the Republicans are not willing to bite on ten amendments, would they do 15? 20? My guess is that they will not agree to any limit and will continue their hold on the bill until the tree is opened.

[15:51]
Charles Grassley (IA) is talking about the need for a repeal of the AMT, or at least holding it back for one more year ("kicking the can down the road").

Grassley does not believe that a one-year patch for the mutating AMT has to be offset.

So here's the rub. The House-passed package for AMT relief — a "patch" that simply prevents the AMT from affecting more taxpayers in April 2008 than it did in April 2007 — is offset by tax increases or tax-cut rollbacks in the amount of $45b. This offset is required under the Democratic principle of pay-go. The idea of pay-go is that Congress must bring in new revenue to offset the loss of another source of revenue.

Here's what Grassley and the Senate Republicans are saying: By stopping AMT from affecting more families this tax year, the government is not losing a revenue stream. Rather than losing money, the government is merely not getting something that it could have gotten were the AMT not patched.

If the AMT is not freshly patched going into tax year 2008, Grassley says that an additional 23 million families will owe an average of $2,000 more than they did last year.

Grassley also says that refunds could be delayed if Congress does not act quickly.

Peru Free Trade Agreement Passes

Yesterday the Senate approved a trade deal with Peru by a 77-18 vote. Only one Republican voted against the deal, Jon KYl (AZ). The Democrats voting against the deal were Akaka (HI), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Byrd (WV), Casey (PA), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Harkin (IA), Klobuchar (MN), Kyl (AZ), Leahy (VT), McCaskill (MO), Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Sanders (VT), Stabenow (MI), Tester (MT), and Whitehouse (RI).

Quite a few freshman senators in that list. The Presidential candidates did not vote.

I can't explain the Kyl vote. It's possible that he interpreted the deal as being bad for Arizona in some way. It's hard to tell because McCain (AZ) was a no-vote.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Tuesday, December 4, 2007:  Debating Trade Deal with Peru

[17:15]
Contrary to earlier reports, it appears that senators cannot reach any kind of agreement on an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) fix. Earlier today May Baucus (MT) said that he thought that he had enough votes to support a one-year AMT patch. However, Baucus just said on the floor that Senate Republicans were holding up an AMT fix.

Mitch McConnell (KY), minority leader, propounded a unanimous consent request which contained an outline for Senate work on an AMT fix. Baucus objected to this UC. Reid earlier sent a motion to proceed to the House-passed AMT fix. Reid also filed a cloture motion for that motion to proceed. Senators could vote for cloture on the House-passed AMT fix on Thursday, but from Baucus's recent floor remarks, it sounds like Democrats are short of the 60 votes they need to proceed to the AMT patch.

[16:23]
Byrd said that the Senate was meeting its responsibility by passing funds for bridge repair, for low-income heating assistance, for cops on the streets, for first responders. Etc. His point is that this funding was passed by the Senate but vetoed by the President.

Byrd has now started to cough and has asked his aid for a cough drop. C-SPAN2's camera cuts away in courtesy.

He continues. The choice is clear, he says, as clear as the noonday sun in a cloudless sky.

[16:21]
Robert Byrd (WV) is asking the President to stop, S-T-O-P, stop the veto threats that have been the albatross of the budgetary process for months.

[14:57]
The Senate is now in a quorum call. Max Baucus said earlier today that there are enough votes to pass an AMT patch. I call it a patch because it is just a one-year fix. It is apparently not paid for. The Senate is going to take up this AMT patch later this afternoon.

[14:52]
Peru Free Trade Agreement passes 77-18.

[12:02]
Mel Martinez (FL) says that senators should vote in favor of the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Martinez says it will add 900 jobs to Florida's economy. He says that it will add $2b per year to the U.S. GDP.

Further, Martinez says that for the first time a trade deal contains enforcement provisions if environmental or labor concerns arise under the deal.

He is also talking about why entering this deal is a strategic imperative for America. He describes the deal as a reward for Peru's allegiance to democracy over the last ten years. Martinez is implicitly contrasting Peru with other countries in South America that have moved toward the left, such as Venezuela and Bolivia.

[11:56]
Sherrod Brown (OH) spoke in opposition to the Peru Free Trade Agreement, as did Bernie Sanders (VT).

Max Baucus (MT), chairman of the Finance Committee, spoke in favor of the deal. He said that the Peru agreement is the first of its kind to address environmental standards in the partner country.

[10:36]
Jon Kyl (AZ) says that there are problems with the version of the FISA update that came out of the Judiciary Committee. He says that this version of the bill ties down intelligence agencies with too many limits on how those agencies can gather foreign intelligence. The bill makes FISA the sole means by which U.S. entities can gather intelligence. Kyl says that this language is too narrow.

[10:33]
John Cornyn (TX) is urging the Senate to pass the intelligence & wiretapping bill that is moving through Congress. It is an update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Cornyn says that telecomm companies should be granted immunity from lawsuits by customers alleging that the companies breached privacy agreements by allowing the gov't to eavesdrop on customers' communications. Cornyn says, "Are we going to hang these companies out to dry or are we going to give them the protection they are entitled to under the law?" Of course, that protection "under the law" does not exist except for in prospective legislation granting immunity.

Precap:

At 10:00, the Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. Thereafter, it will resume consideration of H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.

This is a free-trade treaty that the Bush Administration has negotiated with Peru. The current law on Congressional approval of trade deals permits Congress only to vote yea or nay on a trade deal. This means that Senators cannot offer amendments altering the terms of the deal. You either take it or leave it.

The deal passed the House 285-132.