January 31, 2007: Min Wage Bill Clears Final Procedural Hurdle

[~20:00]
The Senate has adjourned for the day.  At closing, majority leader Reid made a unanimous consent request to begin consideration of the re-worked Warner (VA) resolution on Iraq—as a bill.  Both John Warner and minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) objected.  Reid was quick to say that he too did not like the idea of turning the resolution on Iraq into a bill but that he was doing it for procedural purposes; specifically, it is too hard to offer amendments on resolutions.  Reid wanted the Warner resolution to serve as a template that other senators could offer amendments on; there was no intention of trying to pass it as a bill, it would not be sent to the President, after debate the bill language would be stripped and it would revert to a plain old non-binding resolution.  Well, McConnell, who had not had a chance to read the new wording of the Warner resolution, had to object.  Warner himself said that he wanted the Senate to have its own debate on Iraq, to keep the debate in house, etc.  So, we'll see.

Tomorrow it seems will begin with morning-business speeches and then move to votes on judge confirmations. After that it's probably open floor, probably a lot of talk on Iraq.  Debate on the min wage bill is over but there are still some requisite post-cloture hours to burn.  The Senate opens tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern.


[17:34]
The Senate is now in a quorum call.  Cloture on the underlying minimum wage bill successfully passed.  The Senate will wrap up the min wage bill by week-end.  On Monday, at noon, said majority leader Reid, there will be some kind of vote on Iraq.


[15:45]
At 16:00 the Senate will vote on a Kyl amendment to the min wage bill.  After that, they'll vote for cloture on the underlying bill (60 votes needed).


[12:33]
Charles Grassley, IA.  The senator from Iowa has been speaking for twenty minutes or so on issues ranging from accountability of drug trials at the FDA to the likely criticism of Bush's budget by left-wing think tanks, east coast media, and even Congressional leadership.

It sounds like there will be a vote later this afternoon on a Kyl amendment to the min wage bill and that will be the only remaining vote on any amendments to the min wage bill (not counting the "substitute").

January 30, 2007: 60 More Hours Making Minimum Wage

[19:11]
The Senate is done for the day.


[17:55]
Barack Obama (IL) is now speaking on Iraq.  Obama voted against giving the President the authority to go into Iraq (an 85-13 vote).  The need to bring this war to an end is here.  Obama is introducing an Iraq War de-escalation act, that would remove almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.  Forces would be re-deployed to the U.S. and Afghanistan among other countries.  Obama did not speak long, only five minutes.


[15:40]
The Senate is currently in a quorum call.  The majority now wants to burn time.  Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on a bill (or an amendment) post-cloture.  At this point, germane amendments to the bill (or amendment) can still come up for a vote. The way the majority has structured this min wage bill is to offer a clean version of the bill (the house bill) and then proffer a so-called "substitute," technically an amendment to the "underlying" bill.  Here the substitute is a Baucus amendment that represents the dems' offer-in-compromise.  The Senate just this afternoon voted overwhelmingly (87-10) in favor of cloture (ending debate) on the substitute amendment.  Now, the minority is choosing not to forgo its right to have the underlying bill pass a cloture motion by roll-call vote (60 votes needed).  Even if the minority does not filibuster the underlying bill, this second cloture vote will still add 30 hours to the process. Even if the Senate works twelve-hour days, this is another two-and-a-half legislative days.  Ultimately, the debate over a Senate resolution on Iraq will not come for another week.  Five legislative days from here plus the weekend.

[16:20]
The Senate isn't doing much this afternoon.  Currently they are voting to confirm a judge, Lisa Godbey Wood, for U.S. District Court judge for southern Georgia.  Everyone is voting "aye."


[12:39]
In a surprisingly strong vote, the motion to limit debate on the substitute bill passed 87-10.  There are eight germane amendments remaining.  But it sounds like the Senate is required to get in 30 post-cloture hours of debate meaning that the soonest the final bill can be approved in the Senate is tomorrow.


[10:02]
Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) is laying out today's schedule.  The schedule for the afternoon depends on how the min wage cloture vote turns out.


Preview:
Last week, the majority motioned for cloture on the "clean" version of the minimum wage bill.  This is the version that came out of the House of Representatives, H.R. 2.  This cloture motion received only 51 votes, needing 60 to succeed.  Today, the Senate will vote on a cloture motion for the so-called "substitute" version of the min wage bill.  This substitute is basically a different form of the bill and represents a mild compromise with the minority because the substitute includes some tax breaks for small businesses.  However, based on debate last week and yesterday, the minority in the Senate does not seem to think that the substitute bill is enough of a compromise—the Republicans want more from this bill, probably in the form of more tax benefits for small businesses.  Republicans say that the minimum wage will hit small business owners too hard.  Tom Coburn (OK) argued yesterday that it would actually HURT those in his state currently making the minimum wage because it will raise their income to such a level that they will be eligible for less state aid (e.g. Medicaid) and will owe more in annual taxes.  Edward Kennedy, the Democratic sponsor of the bill, and a year-in, year-out champion of the minimum wage has accused the minority of "filibuster by amendment."

The Democrats needs 10 Republican votes on this bill, maybe more if one or two Dems votes with the Reps (unlikely).  If I had to list ten Reps that could make the cloture vote a success they would be: Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Smith (OR), Coleman (MN), Warner (VA), Specter (PA)...that's only six.  I'm not seeing much hope for this cloture motion meaning the min wage bill will be stalled once again.  The Democratic leadership will have to decide whether it wants to sweeten the compromise or just move on to something else.

January 29, 2007: No Votes Today; Some Debate on Min Wage; Cloture Tomorrow at 12:15

[17:32]
Harry Reid (NV) is on the floor, making unanimous consent requests for various specific resolutions (recognizing the University of Nebraska championship volleyball game).  Ok, now he is wrapping up the day.  The Senate is done for the day.  It will recommence at 10:00 am tomorrow morning.  There will then be 60 minutes of morning business.  Then debate will turn to the minimum wage bill before a 12:15 vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the minimum wage "substitute" bill (this is the Baucus amendment that includes some business tax breaks).


[~17:00]
Tom Coburn (OK) is speaking about the minimum wage.  He says the federal gov't should leave the question of minimum wage up to the states.  Twenty-nine states have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage.  In fact, says Coburn, by raising the minimum wage we will be hurting the people in my state who are making minimum wage.  By raising their annual income, we will be affecting their ability to get aid from the state of Oklahoma.  Someone making the federal minimum wage in Oklahoma will now have to pay a higher child-care co-pay, receive less in food stamps, etc. Adults making this higher minimum wage would no longer be eligible for Medicaid in Oklahoma, only their children.

So why would we want to do this?  Why would we want to hurt the people of my state?  I'll tell ya why, it's because there is one big, powerful organization behind this effort, and that's the labor unions.  Coburn says the net loss is only $32 but "that doesn't include taxes."  INcluding taxes, he says these folks will lose about $1200.  And, he says, we'll lose more jobs overseas.

Coburn calls for some kind of "safe harbor" being added to the bill.  This would be some kind of provision that would describe to the states a way to keep citizens from being hurt by the minimum wage rise.  Sorry, I can't be more specific.

The way Coburn is talking makes it sound like the minority is serious about killing this bill.  The price has gone up in terms of tax breaks the minority will demand on this bill.  You might see talk of the estate tax return.  And this would be a major snafu for the majority which now needs this bill, which campaigned on this bill.  It is the old switcheroo; being in the minority has actually made Republicans more powerful on this issue and others (e.g. DeMint getting his earmark language into the Senate version of the ethics bill).

I missed Arlen Specter (PA) speaking earlier, who C-SPAN2 says called this morning for Supreme Court hearings to be televised.  So he is calling for more cameras.  A couple of Republicans have said in the last month that the Senate's floor proceedings should not be televised, including Conrad Burns, the now former senator of Montana. And someone last week said basically that bills take so much longer now than they did before because the debate in the Senate was not as free and open due to the presence of cameras.  I think it was Lamar Alexander (TN) but damnit I'm not sure, does anyone know?

January 26, 2007: Petraeus Passes the Senate; No Other Floor Votes Today; Min Wage Bill in Limbo

[13:19]
On Monday, the Senate starts the day at 14:00 eastern.  There will not be any votes.


[13:08]
We all have memories, answers Reid.  I remember that the minority during the Frist Era had very little chance to offer amendments on bills.  Reid now is moving on to the topic of Iraq.  Cloture for min wage Tuesday at noon eastern.

Reid wants the Senate to vote on one of the Iraq resolutions next week.  S. Con Res. 2, I think he said.  This is the Hagel, Biden resolution.  Reid is filing a cloture motion on the resolution.  It will need 60 votes to pass.


[13:05]
They're slingin it now. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) follows Reid by saying that the Senate had a chance to vote on a minimum wage last year but the Dems held it up.  Historically, says McConnell, it has been the practice of Congress to pass a minimum wage bill package that includes tax provisions.  My friends on the other side of the aisle are learning what it means to be the majority in the Senate, he says.  McConnell notes that the first cloture vote the majority attempted to pass was for the "clean" version of the bill and that that was a waste of time. McConnell and his side have "a few very important" amendments that have to be considered.


[13:00]
Majority Leader Reid (NV) says enough is enough and it's time to vote for cloture on the minimum wage "substitute" bill.  This "substitute" includes some tax breaks for small businesses—meaning it is not "clean" as was the House version of the bill.  Reid says that the average CEO can work until noon on the first day of the year and make as much during that time as a minimum wage worker toiling for the entire year.  The tax breaks offered in amendments by the minority total $350b.


[11:36]
There won't be any more votes today.  The Senate is in session and senators are welcome to come to the floor to talk about whatever they want.  The debate consuming the last hour or so concerns the pending minimum wage bill.

Edward Kennedy (MA) believes that the minority has engaged in a filibuster of the minimum wage "by amendment."  He wonders what the Republicans have against raising the minimum wage.

For their part, minority senators such as John Enzi (WY) and Lamar Alexander (TN) assert that they are not opposed to a minimum wage increase, and would vote for one, as long as the minimum wage bill includes tax breaks for "small businesses" to ease the burden that the government is placing on them by fixing the minimum wage throughout the country.

There are a heap of pending amendments.  Majority Leader Reid (NV) has announced that the Senate will vote once again for cloture on the min wage bill on Tuesday.  Whether this motion passes (60 votes needed) depends on which minority senators are satisfied that sufficient tax break language has been added to the bill.  


[10:07]
The Senate has confirmed General David Petraeus as the new top commander in Iraq, 81-0.


[9:04]
Senate is rolling early today.  The Senate is about to consider the David H. Petraeus nomination.  Gen. Petraeus is slated to become the head general in Iraq.  He enjoys wide-reaching support and this nomination vote should move quickly and without rancor.

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

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


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

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


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

Dem ayes: Nelson (NE)
Rep nays:

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

January 24, 2007: Line Item Veto Is Stripped From Min Wage Bill

[17:53]
The Allard amendment did not pass.  Indeed, many Republicans voted against it including Chuck Grassley (IA), John Thune (SD), Jeff Sessions (AL), Pete Domenici (NM), and David Vitter (LA).  The final vote was 28 yes, 69 no.


[17:06]
The Senate will shortly vote on an Allard (CO) amendment.  This amendment would allow each state to set its own minimum wage, nixing the concept of a federal minimum wage.  Allard says that his amendment will give states flexibility.

Compare this to a DeMint Amendment that would raise the minimum wage in each state immediately by $2.10.  Recall that the House version of the minimum wage bill, which the Senate is now considering would raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.


[12:00]
The Senate is now voting on a cloture motion on the House version of the minimum wage bill.  The question is: should debate on the bill be brought to a close?  Kennedy urges "yes"; Enzi (WY) for the minority says "no."  Republicans are not yet happy with the bill because it does not yet contain any small-business tax breaks.  The majority needs 60 votes here, meaning 10 Republicans.

Republican ayes: Warner, Specter, Collins, Coleman, Snowe
Democratic nays:

Motion only gets 54 votes.  So, a clean version of the minimum wage bill (i.e. the House version) will not pass the Senate.  The Senate will now vote on amendments to the minimum wage bill.  Many of these amendments will be in the form of business tax breaks.


[11:33]
Cloture vote on "enhanced rescission authority."  Expect Repubs to vote "aye," meaning they vote to end debate on the bill and proceed to a vote on its passage; and at least some Dems to vote "no" meaning that debate should not end, effectively stalling the amendment and killing it.  So far party line...

Republican nays:
Democratic ayes: Bayh (ID), Lieberman (CT)

Motion is NOT agreed to.  For now, once again, the line item veto is dead.


[11:29]
OK, now Gregg says he is not going to give the President 365 days to make a decision on rescission but will roll that back to 30 days.  Big difference, still unconstitutional.


[11:24]
The cloture vote on the Gregg Amdt. is near.  The Dems have time left to debate the measure but no one is on the floor to talk about it.  So Edward Kennedy (MA) the majority floor manager of the underlying minimum wage bill repeats what he has been saying about the minimum wage throughout the week.  He lists all of the luminaries who have asked for a raise in the minimum wage.  That hard-working Americans who have played by the rules deserve a modest raise.  The wage raise will make a difference to children in the society, to women, and those men and women of color who are just entering the job ranks.  $7.25 in the richest country in the world is not too much to ask.


[11:16]
The Gregg Amendment allows the President to single out certain provisions in a spending bill and send them back to the Congress where the Congress must act within 10 days to affirm the President's decision to cut the provision out of the bill.  The President has 365 days to decide what he wants to do with a bill.  The Constitution says the President should only have 10 days to accept or reject a bill.  But the Constitution is neither here nor there, right?


[11:12]
Jim DeMint, SC.  Says that the President needs more choices when he gets a bill than: take it or leave it.  DeMint supports the line item veto.  I am wondering at this point why no Dems other than Byrd and Conrad have taken to the floor in opposition to the idea of a line item rescission authority.  DeMint says don't worry about the President holding this new authority over the heads of the Congress because "I know this body well enough to know" that we will not bow to the President.  The Republican line is that the nation faces a fiscal crisis and that we need to give the President as many tools as possible that will allow him to cut wasteful spending.


[11:10]
Kent Conrad, ND.  Believes this Amendment is unconstitutional.  He does not believe Congress should give any kind of line item veto authority to the President; that this is precisely the kind of power that our framers wanted to keep out of the hands of the President.  The President already has veto authority, says Conrad.  Let him use that.


[10:19]
Judd Gregg, NH.  He says that he hopes no one votes against cloture on his amendment (presidential rescission authority) on the theory that it is not relevant to the underlying bill (minimum wage).  He recounts the deal worked out with the majority last week whereby he agreed to take his amendment off of the ethics bill and save it for the minimum wage bill.  Senators are estopped from objecting to it on the basis that it is not germane, he says.  Because I wanted to bring it up in the context of ethics and earmark reform.


[10:01]
Ken Salazar, CO.  The junior senator from Colorado stressed that efficiency and the reduction of consumption are the best and quickest ways to cut our dependence on energy.


The Senate will kick off at 9:30 eastern.  The Gregg Amendment proposing a grant to the president of rescission authority for spending bills faces a cloture vote this morning.  It will need 60 votes to pass this procedural hurdle.  Senate followers know that West Virginia senator Robert Byrd, who has more votes in the Senate than anyone else in the history of the U.S. Senate, has vocally opposed this amendment on the floor waxing poetic about the esteemed position of being a senator, going back even to the Roman days.

January 23, 2007: Work On the Minimum Wage; Debate Over Line Item Veto

[17:27]
The Senate will adjourn until this evening at 20:30 when it will convene and walk to the House where it will sit and hear the State of the Union Address, after which time the Senate will again stand in adjournment.

The cloture vote on the Gregg Amendment will take place tomorrow.


[16:55]
The Senate is voting on a Sessions (AL) amendment to the minimum wage bill.  Everyone is voting "aye."


[16:04]
Lindsey Graham (SC) relayed his impressions from this mornings discussion between the Senate Armed Services Committee and the new head general in Iraq, David Petraeus.  He thinks Petraeus, coupled with the President's new strategy, need a chance to show us the way forward in Iraq.


[15:50]
Bernie Sanders (VT) hopes that the increase in the minimum wage is just the first step our country will take to helping bolster the middle class.  He pointed to trade agreements as a current plague on our nation's working class and urged that our nation re-think its trade policy.


[15:13]
The Senate has been debating a bill that would raise the minimum wage.  A Snowe (ME) amendment just passed.  There will be further debate and votes on amendments.


[10:29]
John Cornyn, TX.  The junior senator from Texas is shuffling through a series of big blue cards on which he has quotes from Democrats favoring a line item veto proposal circa ten years ago.  This is the extent of his argument in favor of a line item veto/rescission authority, the thrust of the Gregg Amendment.  Cornyn has nothing else to say in support of the Amendment.  Just that Feingold, Feinstein, Dorgan, and Murray once spoke in favor of a line item veto amendment, albeit a line item veto different in material ways than the one before the Senate.  The Gregg Amendment gives the President the authority to hold up a bill passed by Congress for up to 365 days.  The Constitution says the President has to act on a bill passed by Congress in 10 days.


[10:07]
According to the majority leader Harry Reid (NV), a vote for cloture on the Gregg line item veto amendment will take place tomorrow.  This amendment would give the president rescission authority over bills that Congress has passed.  Thereafter will follow votes throughout the week and into Friday morning unless the minimum wage bill is completed on Thursday, which Reid believes is possible.  Looking farther ahead, the Senate plans to pass continuing funding resolutions next week.  These are stop-gap spending agreements in lieu of appropriations bills, which last year's Congress did not pass for FY 2007.

January 22, 2007: Robert Byrd Defends the Consitution; Kent Conrad Looks For Osama bin Forgotten

[19:00]
The Senate stands in adjournment until 10:00 am e.s.t. tomorrow.


[18:59]
John Warner (VA) closed out the day with comments on Iraq.  He with senators Ben Nelson (NE), Norm Coleman (MN), and Susan Collins (ME) are offering an alternative resolution on Iraq.


[13:54]
Edward Kennedy (MA) is a sponsor of the minimum wage bill, and the minimum wage has been his cause for awhile.  He is now thanking Byrd for bringing historical perspective to the debate.  So Byrd is now thanking him back.  But he is moving on to thank Conrad again, he says Conrad is his favorite senator of this age, that Conrad's speech will be in the record for a thousand years, the record, the record, for a thousand years. there's nothing I could say to embellish, or to comment at all except to say, it's one of the great speeches that I've heard in this senate...I've herrd a lot and I've been here a long time...the senator for north dakota is a leader among men, a leader among senators, I thank him...

I am venturing to guess that Kennedy is willing to go along with bringing the Gregg amdt to a vote but would vote against it once it came up for a vote on its passage...Kennedy now moves the conversation back to talk about the minimum wage...


[14:37]
Kent Conrad, ND. I hope the senators have been listening (to what Robert Byrd has just said)...What he says about the amdt is the truth.  Mr pResient this is a danegerouf amendment...I believe this amendt is profoundly dangerorus.  It will not help deal with our budget shortfall.  Mr pres the thing it will do without question is transfer power to the president of the united states.   Mr president senator Byrd has made clear it's not a question of this president—it's a question of any president.

Make no mistake I believe this measure is unconstitutional.  Our founding fathers had great wisdom.  They did not want any president to have the power of the purse...because they recognized the dangers of concentrating power in the hand of one person....

This would give the president leverage he doesn't already have.  Imagine the president with two bills on his desk.  He tells the senator, I'm gonna have to veto your provision unless you can help me with this other bill I've got here on the desk.  We shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to make its judgment, we should make this judgment ourselves, right here,...

[
Adam, where art thou?  Robert (Byrd (WV)), where were you when the Supreme Court nullified the line item veto?  I was there.  Hear me now.  I mean, c'mon.  I don't say the line item is a proposal that stands in dark contrast to the constitution without a deep, deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States.

And when I speak of the l i v today and as many days as need be I speak of the oaths, the oaths.  We swear an oath, the one we take upon entrypoint to this office.  We take an oath, for Goddd, and man.  To uphold and defend...to support and defend the constitution of the united states of america I speak today on a subject that brooches, that brooches the most serious of const'l questions.  Now pending before the senate is a proposal of a line item veto.  Offered as an amendment to the minimum wage billl...it would give the president a role in the legislative process...the amendment would alter the role of the president in the legislative process.  We would give him the power to strip from a bill any spending item that he dislikes.

Let me say that again...it would allow a president, one man, to sign a spending bill into law and then—get this—and then strip from that bill any spending item that he dislikes.  Through a process known as expedited rescission...the president could force an add'l vote by Congress on spending items that do not mimic, m-i-m-i-c, mimic his budget requests and impound the spending that he does not unlike until the Congress votes again.   Such a proposal is a lethal lethal lethal aggrandizement of the chief executive's role in the legislative process.

Lethal, deadly, such a proposal is a lethal aggrandizement of the chief exec's role in the legis pocess.  It is a gross, gross colossal distortion of the congressional power of the purse.  It is a dangerous, dangerous...a wolf in a sheep's clothing of fiscal responsibility.  Woof woof: woof!  That's what it is,..hear me out there in West Virginia and throughout the land.  The Constitution is explict, explicit and precise about the role of the president in the legislative process.  Read the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7:

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated...If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way, and I quote the immortal first president of this land, the father of our country, the commander-in-chief at Valley Forge, George Washington. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way, and I quote, "The Presidentmust approve all, a-l-l, all the parts of a bill or reject it en toto."  There is no other way, take it or leave it.  The father, the father of our coutry, George Washington, HEar me!  The father of the country was right.

Now I, Robert Byrd, continue.  A legislative veto effectively creates a third option; it adds a new, a neewwww dimension to executive power.  Under the Gregg Amendment, the amdt by my distinguished friend..hear me now, hey, did you get that?  Instead of vetoing a bill and returning it to Congress so that it might still become law, under the Gregg Amendment, and I say with the most respect.  Under the Gregg Amdt, the president can drop a spending provision after the bill becomes law.

What are we doing here?  The president can sign a bill into law and then, and then drop the provisions that he might not like.  Are you hearing me?  What am I saying?  I can't believe it— the president can sign a bill into law and then afterwards he can strip it of the provisions he does not like?  Have you ever heard of something so radical, so radical!!>?

Instead of the president weighing in before the bill becomes law he can avoid the debate until after the bill becomes law.  He can ignore it all, pull out anything he doesn't like...  This is one man downtown.  He could be a Republican or a Democrat, whoever the people elect—.

By empowering the president to craft legislation we would be ceding our const'l duty to the people,— ceding the constl means of the people, the people, to resist executive encroachment.

After we pass a bill the President would have up to one year to make his decisions.  The president could use this power to manipulate senators or advance his agenda.  Any president, I'm just not referring to President Bush, I'm starting with him.  But it could be any president, any president could use this power, and remember, this isn't the last president, Mr. Bush, there will be others.

Under the Gregg Amendment the president could punish or reward recalcitrant recalcitrant recalcitrant senators.  Every debate could be swayed—swayed—influenced by this new power of the president of the United States to influence citizens', citizens'...You Mr Byrd, Mr. Conrad, Mr and Mrs Senator...and use this power over senators to influence, what kind of power are we talking about?  You better think about this.   It provides the president with a mechanism to rewrite legislation after it has passed congress.

The president wouldn't just get 10 days, it would provide the president with up to 365 days!  Hear me! Friends, citizens of this country, lend me your ears...365 days, hey!...up to 365 days to act on a bill?  This is a provision that is unconstitituional on its face...and I don't think the senator on my left would go along with that.  That is Senator Conrad for the record.

Imagine what happens if Congress passes a major package of legislation.  Imagine the president dismantling that package months after it had been passsed by the Congress.  Are you listening? Hear me!@  How wise and practical will this line item veto seem then?  This line item veto is an anathema, an anathema to the framers' careful balancing of powers because it allows any president to aggressicly—listen to me friends on the other side of the aisle—to impose His will on the legislative Branch with regard to the budgetary process.

The ancient Romans thought that an oath was sacred.  They would give their lives, they would give their lives...to preserve an oath...an oath...an aoth....  Senators take an oath to serve and protect the constitution.

I'll stand here until my bones crumple underneath, until I have no further breath if necessary to stop this proposal from becoming law.  Why would we want to do this?

So I urge the senators to listen, this isn't the last word, by any means, that I could have,,,,to resist this assault on the constitution and on the congress.  I urge senators, yes, I urge senators, senators, there is no greater name under the constitution.

Who was that roman emperor????...,who said "I still revere," that Roman great Roman who when he was about to take, about to become the emperor of the Roman Empire, what did he say?  "I still revere the name of Senator."  That was 476 a.d.  This was Majorian, I believe it was.

 Senators, did you hear that?...I urge senators to resist this assualt.  I'm talking about a line item veto now, you ain't heard, you ain't heard nothing yet,,,resist this assault...on the people, the people of the Unites States.  Mr president, I yield the floor.


[14:23]
 Judd Gregg (NH) is now explaining what his amendment does.  Gregg says that it is not a line item veto and it is constitutional.  He calls it "enhanced rescission."  Under the amendment, the President can send certain spending provisions back to Congress for a "second look."  Congress then has to vote by majority of both houses to affirm that it wants the spending to remain in the bill.  In a change from last week, the amendment now allows senators within one rescission package to vote in favor of only some of the rescissions within one package.  Meaning, if the President on a spending bill rescinds five provisions, a senator could affirm three but not vote to keep the other two in the bill.

Gregg now cites several Democrat senators as having supported the line item veto in the past: Feingold, Feinstein, Biden, Dorgan, Kerry, Kennedy, even Byrd.


[14:19]
Reid came on to call up H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill.  Reid then offered a "substitute" amendment, #100.  McConnell then offered Gregg's presidential rescission authority amendment, which you might remember as the amendment that held up debate last week on Ethics Reform.  Reid then sent a motion for cloture on the Gregg Amendment, #101.  This is the deal that the two sides worked out to finish the Ethics bill.  Gregg's amendment will get an up-or-down vote on Wednesday, possibly sooner.  Reid affirmed that Robert Byrd (WV) remains opposed to presidential rescission authority, which is another name for a watered-down version of the line item veto.


[13:49]
James Inhofe, OK.  Inhofe is on to talk about a movement he calls "The Counter-Recruitment Movement," which aims to dissuade new troops from joining the Army.  He is talking about how San Francisco turned away the U.S.S. Iowa and quoted a San Fran councilman who said he was not proud of this country's history over the last forty years.  This movement is convinced that Junior ROTC programs are designed to trick people into thinking they want to join the Army.


[13:18]
Byron Dorgan, ND.  A different course of action is a plan, says Dorgan.  The senator from Arizona (Jon Kyl) says the resolution does not have a plan but yet he refers to the resolution suggesting "a different course of action."  No one should suggest that this is a debate about whether we should support our troops.  No one is saying that, I'm sure.  The debate will be about the president's strategy to surge troops in Iraq.

What do we now about Iraq?  Saddam Hussein used to run Iraq but he has been executed and buried.  The Iraqis now must run Iraq and they must be responsible for its security.  Can Iraqi troops be trained in months, not years?  The answer so far seems to be no.  We all know what's going on there, it's sectarian violence, Shia on Sunni, Sunni on Shia.  Seventy-five more people dead today in attacks.  Bodies with holes drilled in the heads and knees, tortured bodies swinging from lamp poles, beheaded bodies floating down the Tigris.  

Now let's look at what the top general in Iraq, General Abizaid, said in front of the Congress in November.  I asked him if it would make any difference if we were to bring in more troops and Abizaid said "No."  "Because we want the Iraqis to do more" and the presence of U.S. troops would prevent the Iraqis from doing it.

And how about Afghanistan?  The Taliban by all accounts are now taking hold once again.  They are fighting hard to destabilize the government in Afghanistan.  We need more troops in Afghanistan but the president's plan would divert troops to Iraq from Afghanistan.  Intelligence Chief Negroponte said it was al Qaeda that threatened the U.S. and its Homeland the most.  Negroponte suggests that the al Qaeda leaders are secure and hidden in Pakistan.  We're talking about bin Laden, Dorgan says.  He is going through a series of big cards with visuals on them.  Now is a picture of bin Laden with his long gray beard and Kalashnikov.  Dorgan refers to him as Osama bin Forgotten, "as some say these days."


[13:06]
Start one hour of morning business.  Jon Kyl (AZ) warns those senators who would pass a resolution on Iraq.  The President should be accorded the consideracy of time to test the new strategy.  The primary part of the new strategy says Kyl, is the attitude of the Iraqi government.  Some strategy.  This new strategy is starting to work! says Kyl.  He points to al Maliki's willingness this past week to round up key figures of al Sadr's Mahdi Army.  We need to give this new strategy the chance to succeed and the very early returns suggest it just might be having that effect.  Wow.

Now he turns to al Anbar province which he says is where al Qaeda is active in Iraq.  Most of the new troops are going to Baghdad, though....  "Mere criticism is still criticism without any kind of alternative."  Kyl reads the Democrat resolution, which says: the primary strategy should be to have the Iraqis make the necessary political compromises in Iraq.

Kyl is talking about having to go after the Mahdi Army.  If al Maliki can crack down on Sadr, says Kyl, then the political compromises are possible.

Third and finally, those doing the criticizing need to consider what would happen if we left Iraq a failed state.  It would be disastrous for the people in Iraq, says Kyl, because al Qaeda can concentrate its base in Iraq.  And all the countries in the region who have helped us might hedge their bets with the other powers in the region.  All Americans should want this strategy to succeed.  Why would any American want us to fail in Iraq?  We need to give this a chance and not criticize it before it even has a few days to work out.  The resolution is the wrong strategy. The resolution recommends a pullout according to an "appropriately expedited timeline."  Whatever that is, says Kyl.  Gotta give him that one.  For the time being, we're going to have to remain there.


[13:04 e.s.t.]
There are a lot of things going on this week, even outside the United States, says Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) but he wants to finish the minimum wage bill this week and believes it is possible.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell invites his fellow minority senators to come to the floor starting today and offer amendments to the minimum wage bill.  He notes that tomorrow night's State of the Union Address will cut short the Senate's time tomorrow.



Preview:
The question this week is what minority senators will ask of the majority when a measure to raise the minimum wage comes through the senate.  Last year, as you might recall, Republicans brought a bill before senators that would have raised the minimum wage if certain other tax breaks (extenders) were included.  It was a minimum wage bill and a tax extender bill in one package, which Frist &Co. dubbed the "Family Prosperity Act" but which Reid called "The Prosperous Families Act".  The Democrats killed it with objections over provisions that would have extended estate tax cuts from 2012 through to 2021.  Senators will craft a compromise bill this week that includes a minimum wage hike PLUS something else.  That something else will be advertised as aid to small business owners who now must handle the wage raises.  So then, if wages are gonna go up and if the business owners aren't the ones paying for it, who is?

January 18, 2007: Ethics Bill Passes; Gregg Amendment Will Appear on Minimum Wage Bill

[21:10]
There won't be any votes Friday or Monday.  There will be a vote early on Tuesday, says Majority Leader Reid.


[21:07]
Office of Public Integrity amendment falls after receiving only 27 votes.  Senate is now voting on passage of the final bill.  It will pass easily.


[20:00]
Majority Leader Reid announced that the Senate has reached an agreement on the impasse blocking the Ethics Bill.  The Gregg "rescission authority" amendment (see below, 17:41) will now be voted on during debate of the minimum wage bill, which will come before the Senate on Monday.

Several votes on amendments lie before the Senate tonight, including a Feingold amendment on the "revolving door," the Lieberman Office of Public Integrity amendment, and one or two others.


[17:44]
Senator Trent Lott (MS) doesn't like working late.  He compares the senate to "bats" and says they will come out soon.  Hello?  It's a quarter til six!  I know what's gonna happen.  We're gonna come out of our cave and start a whole series of votes.  Well...let's get started.


[17:41]
Some more specifics on the Gregg "rescission authority" amendment (text): President gets to use four rescissions per calendar year.  What happens is that when the President uses one of the four rescissions he sends a "special message" to the Congress, which is essentially a bill that would strike the spending provision.  Both house then have to pass that bill, apparently with just a simple majority, within 10 days of receipt of the "message."  If both houses do not pass the bill in time, then the rescission expires worthless.  The re-consideration of the spending provision in Congress is "expedited" such that debate on the provision is limited and it is impossible to filibuster in the Senate because the motion to limit debate is by law not debatable.


[17:30]
Here is Judd Gregg (NH), whose amendment has called all the stir.  Gregg says his amendment is not a line item veto it is a "enhanced rescission authority" and that it's not anything like the line item veto that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.  The idea is to have the President highlight spending at which Congress needs to take "a second look."  The President picks out certain spending provisions and sends them back to the Congress, specifically back to committee, and then both houses must approve them.  All it gives to the president is the ability to ask Congress to take a second look at something.  This is a way to weed earmarks out of a bill, he says.

Gregg says that his amendment is very similar to a rescission authority that Tom Dashcle put forth several years ago and which guess who sponsored: Robert Byrd.  Gregg offers to modify his amendment to track Daschle's bill identically.


[17:06]
Here is Robert Byrd (WV) who was the main obstacle to an agreement that would have granted Republicans a vote later this year on a stand-alone version of the line item veto bill.  He has returned to the floor to talk about the line item veto and why it is unconstitutional—why he opposes the very idea of it.

The line item veto weakens the power of the purse.  Weaken that and you weaken, for example, our oversight over this bloody nightmare in Iraq.  That's just one example.  Make no mistake.  Hear me now.  This line item veto authority would grant trememndous and dangerous, dangerous new power to the President.  There are new members of this body, perhaps we oughta have some discussions about the line item veto.  The power of the purse is the only way to reign in an overzealous president.  Hear me now, Senators.  You may be watching your boob tubes, your boob tubes.  Hear me now.  Eight years ago the Supreme Court ruled the line item veto unconstitutional.  I said at the time that the S.C. saved the Congress from its own folly.  But here we are.  On the heels of six years of assault on personal liberty.  Six years of rubber stamps and rubber spines, here we are all too ready to jettison, jettison, jettison the power of the purse.

He runs through the unconstitutional claims of authority President Bush has made.  This is essentially the speech Byrd made late last night.  He reads through the oath that Senators take when they are inaugurated.  He whips out his small red Constitution.  Uphold and defend...so help me God...so help me God....

If our Republican colleagues want to stop the first raise in the minimum wage in a decade, that is their right.  If they want to make a king out of the president, that is their right.  But I, this boy from the hills, will not stand with them.  I will bear true faith and allegiance to this Constitution, and to the people of this great nation.  Fie on any effort to weaken the power of the purse.  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


[17:05]
C-SPAN2 suggested that a deal was in the works to attach the line item veto to the soon-to-begin minimum wage bill in exchange for minority cooperation with finishing the Ethics Reform bill.


[16:24]
The Senate has been in a quorum call for about three hours.  A quorum call is usually used as a delay tactic, sort of like the Senate going to sleep.  This is an extended quorum call.

One thing, though, I learned.  The cloture vote on the Senate's Ethics bill will require 65 votes—more than the usual sixty—because the bill would change the Senate rules, thus requiring a "supermajority."


[13:05]
Wanted to mention a somewhat amusing if not awkward exchange that took place about fifteen minutes ago on the floor.  John Cornyn (TX) was speaking about Iraq and voiced his support for the Bush Plan etc. etc.  John Kerry (MA) broke in to ask permission to make a request of the chair (likely he wanted to reserve time to speak).  Cornyn was visibly miffed.  Normally, a senator who is speaking and who is interrupted will yield to whoever it is that is making a request.  But Cornyn would not yield and said he'd prefer to be allowed to finish his comments and then the senator from Massachusetts could make his request.  Cornyn ended up saying he would not object if Kerry wanted to reserve time after the senator from Colorado, who was the last scheduled speaker.  That was the end of it but things were uncomfortable for about thirty seconds.


[12:59]
Debbie Stabenow (MI) responded to recent comments by Charles Grassley (IA) regarding Medicare prescription drug prices.  Stabenow refuted Grassley's statement that government negotiation of drug prices would not help to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare participants.  Stabenow referred to drug prices available through the Veterans Administration health care plan that were sometimes dramatically lower through the VA plan.  She had a chart comparing prices for drugs under Medicare versus prices throught the VA for popular drugs like Nexium, Toprol, and Zocor.  She also refuted several Grassley assertions including a claim that VA health care enrollees had flocked to Medicare en masse because Medicare offered many drugs that the VA plan did not.  It appears that the Senate is gearing up to debate the introduction of government negotiation of drug prices to Medicare, something that currently does not take place under the Medicare law.


[11:44]
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama (IL) delivers a speech voicing his skepticism about the president's plan for continued involvement in Iraq.  This comes on the heels of Sam Brownback's (KS) speech yesterday in which it was clear that he—just back from Iraq—was also skeptical of the president's plan.  Brownback, a Republican, is also a presidential hopeful.

Obama's answer is to offer legislation capping the number of troops we will send to Iraq.  He notes that other senators have offered similar answers, including presidential hopefuls Hilary Clinton (NY) and Christopher Dodd (CT).  Obama's legislation also includes a phased withdrawal component whereby the president would announce to the Iraqi people that he is moving some troops elsewhere in the region.  Obama suggests we should move some troops to Afghanistan.  The Obama plan also offers resources to increase training of Iraqi troops and suggests deploying more special forces troops in Iraq to work side-by-side with Iraqis.


[11:33]
The status of the Ethics Reform bill is captured accurately in the words of Susan Collins (ME), who wants an up-or-down vote on the Office of Public Integrity amendment.  She says she will not vote to cut off debate on the bill (i.e. vote for cloture) until she gets a vote on the Office of Public Integrity Amendment.  The OPI would sit as an independent, third-party body that would oversee and enforce Congressional ethics and lobbying rules.  The amendment has the support of heavy hitters McCain, Lieberman, Collins, Obama, Kerry, and Feingold.  But past that there probably isn't much support for it.

Yesterday's action:

Senators in the minority launched a filibuster yesterday when majority leaders would not allow the Gregg Amendment on line item veto authority for the President to come to a vote.  Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) reportedly reached a deal with the Republicans to have the line item veto proposal come up for a vote in the spring but Robert Byrd (WV) was able to block this deal from taking hold (I guess b/c he chairs the Appropriations cmte.)  Byrd took to the senate floor late last night, waving his small red copy of the constitution and avowing that he would not blackmailed into handing away the most basic right of the Congress, i.e. the power of the purse.

It is not clear what the Senate will be working on today; but it begins early, 9 am.

January 17, 2007: Midnight Oil, Return of the Line Item Veto, First Class Fares, & Senators' Lobbyist Spouses

[22:51]
Ethics Reform bill remains stalled.  Gregg Amendment on line item veto has somehow whipped up a minority filibuster.  Senate will get underway at 9 am tomorrow.  Somewhere between three and six will be a vote on the motion to reconsider the cloture motion on the Ethics bill.


[22:38]
No one should stand still while this Constitution is the hostage.  He holds a small red copy of the document in his hand.  It is Robert Byrd (WV) at this late hour, decrying the legislative blackmail afoot on the floor of the Senate.  The line item veto threatens the Congress's most basic power, he says.  Are the memories around here so short?  The Supreme Court ruled the line item veto unconstitutional eight years ago.  This President claims the power to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop.  This President has taken the nation to a failed war.  And what is the response of the Senate?  To give him more unfettered authority?  We should not continue to lie down for this President or any other President.  I will not blink; I can not look the other way.  We should pass this ethics reform legislation but we should never ever hand away this power of the Congress.  We have each taken an oath to protect and defend this constitution (he holds it up) and it's about time we did!


[22:12]
Cloture motion fails; Senate Ethics Reform bill is stalled.



[21:55]
OK, here's the big daddy, it's filibuster time!  A motion to invoke cloture on Amendment 3, the "substitute" amendment, which if passed would serve as the main Ethics Reform bill coming out of the Senate.  Minority Leader McConnell (KY), ironically a sponsor of the amendment, is calling for the minority to vote against cloture.

Repubs voting for cloture: Smith, Coleman...that's it.


[21:39]
Bennett Amendment #81 passes 51-46.  There will be two more ten-minute votes. First up is a final vote on Amendment #4, the Reid gift and travel ban amendment.  This one is passing easy.


[21:28]
Now they are voting on a Bennett Amendment, #81, which "would allow travel hosted only by non-profit organizations."  But Feingold said that it would open up a loophole big enough for Jack Abramoff to drive a truck through, specifically that 501(c)(3) organizations that employed lobbyists could sponsor travel, fundamentally altering the text of the current reform bill.  Feingold urged his fellow senators to vote against it.  There are still plenty of senators milling around on the floor so it is likely that there are more votes after this one.

By the way, the threatened minority filibuster of the entire bill is still ON if the majority will not allow the Gregg line item veto amendment come to a vote.


[~21:00]
After a long quorum call the Senate is back in action, voting on amendments.  A Feingold Amendment, #54, which purports "To prohibit lobbyists and entities that retain or employ lobbyists from throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party conventions."  I love how Feingold can't resist but label the parties as "lavish."  Anyway, it passed with only five votes against it.


[19:02]
The Senate is still in a quorum call.  C-SPAN2 is replaying the debate from earlier today between Reid and Mitch McConnell (KY), the minority leader.  Reid came out and said that he was extremely disappointed in a conversation he had just had with McConnell.  According to Reid, McConnell and the minority has avowed to vote against cloture on the bill (i.e. filibuster) if there is not an up-or-down vote on Gregg's Line Item Veto Amendment (see below, 16:49). Recall that the Republicans now hold the filibuster power and can defeat cloture on any bill. Frankly I'm unclear as to why Reid doesn't want the line item veto to come to a vote because it sounds like it needs 66 votes to pass anyway (it is subject to a point of order, requiring a supermajority vote).

Reid says he promised Gregg a vote on the line item veto by Easter, but that this was not the time and place for the amendment.  He further accused Republicans of using this line item veto argument as a ruse to derail the entire Ethics Reform bill.


[17:23]
According to Joe Lieberman (CT) the Senate is in an "unfortunate gridlock" at the moment.  The line item veto has thrown things off track, which Reid suspects is the Republicans' intention.


[16:49]
Still waiting on some votes for this afternoon.  Members were just out on the floor talking about the Gregg Amendment, number 17, which would attempt to bring back a form of the line item veto.  A line item veto passed during Clinton's term but it was judged unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The type of line item veto here is one by which the President can hone in on specific spending provisions in bills, excise them from the bill, and send those particular provisions back to Congress to vote on one-by-one. (This is still probably unconstitutional because the President would then be signing "the leftovers" which the Congress never voted on, as a final, negotiated product.  If you take out one part and send it back, you'd have to send back the leftovers and have Congress vote on those separately, pass them, and send 'em back to the President.)  In any event, Reid does not want this amendment to go forward and is afraid that it would "bring down" the entire Ethics Reform bill.


[12:34]
Senate recess until 2:15 pm est.


[12:21]
David Vitter (LA) spoke about his amendment which seeks to prohibit senators from "having official contact with any spouse of a (senator) who is a registered lobbyist."  There is an exception in the amendment for those spouses who were employed as lobbyists at least one year prior to the marriage.  But there is no grandfather clause, per se.  Feinstein asked Vitter about this, and whether his amendment meant some people would lose their jobs upon passage of the bill.  He said this would be the case.  Feinstein is now saying that her side would accept the amendment if it were only prospective—going forward—and not retroactive.  She is also afraid that the phrase "official contact" is too broad: can a spouse attend the Supreme Court dinner?  Can a spouse call an office and get a schedule?  She is dubious.

She says Reid offered to accept the amendment if it had a grandfather clause but Vitter didn't take the offer and she's not sure why.  Vitter says, Yes, the idea is that it is going to affect people.  If it doesn't affect anyone here, then it's just window dressing.

It's unlikely this amendment will pass.  It will likely be judged non-germane by the parliamentarian and, because it is considered a second-degree amendment to the "substitute" bill, a.k.a. Amendment 3, a.k.a the only train leaving the station when this thing is all said and done, it will need 60 votes to pass post-cloture (see below, 12:13).


[12:13]
I have finally come to understand why Majority Leader Reid has offered the Ethics Reform bill (S.1.) as part of a tandem that also includes the so-called "substitute" amendment, Amendment 3.  The real bill here is not S.1. but the "substitute," which itself is an amendment to S1.  But here's the thing.  Amendment 3, the substitute, will pass.  And when it passes it renders S1 worthless.  Thus, if you are a senator offering an amendment your amendment is also worthless.  Look at the list of second-degree amendments to Amendment 3.  Every amendment to S1 also has to be an amendment to Amendment 3.  This makes every amendment to Amendment 3 a second-degree amendment.  Reid will move for cloture on Amendment 3.  When cloture is invoked, any amendment to Amendment 3 (i.e. every amendment that's out there) will have to be "germane," and if it is not germane it cannot amend the substitute unless it gets 60 votes.  Thus, Reid has constructed a means to require 60 votes of any these non-germane amendments, which keeps the bill clean and moves the process along with alacrity.


[10:06]
The order of the day is Amendment 4, the Reid Travel Amendment.  The amendment passed cloture yesterday making it harder to add second-degree amendments.  Now a second-degree amendment must be judged germane by the Senate Parliamentarian; if it is not germane, it will need 60 votes for passage.  Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) said that there are three or four germane second-degree amendments and the Senate will vote on these today, after which time the Senate will vote on final passage of the amendment. All of this could take until 10 :30 tonight, said Reid.

From there, it looks like there are 30 or so amendments on the bill-at-large that floor leaders Feinstein and Bennett can both agree to.  These amendments can be voted for en bloc, by a voice vote.  That will lead to a cloture vote on the substitute amendment, which is essentially the working Ethics Bill.  Reid will move for cloture on that.  After cloture, a few non-germane amendments will remain and he and McConnell will decide which of these the Senate will vote on (60 votes needed).  Finally, once all of the amendments are done with, the Senate will vote on final passage of the bill.

January 16, 2007: The Senate Broadens Its Definition of "Earmark"

The Senate's Ethics Reform bill grew some teeth as three amendments passed with nearly unanimous support.  DeMint's amendment, which broadens the definition of "earmark" passed 98-0 after a Durbin second degree amendment to DeMint's amendment passed by the same count.  DeMint's language broadened the earmark definition to include conference report language and appropriations to federal entities.  Durbin's amendment extended DeMint's definition to include targeted tax breaks.  Durbin's amendment also ensured that earmarks and their sponsors would be disclosed before a bill was debated on the floor of the Senate.  A Reid amendment requiring senators to pay the full charter fare on corporate flights (instead of the equivalent first-class fare) met a cloture motion 95-2.  Elsewhere, Byrd spoke in defense of earmarks but voted for the broadened definitions...Feinstein and Specter addressed the stink of forced resignations in the Justice Department...



[19:15]
Senate's done for the day.


[18:45]
The cloture motion on the Reid Amendment #4, concerning gift and travel bans, has passed 95-2.  Successful passage of the cloture motion means that second-degree amendments must be germane, and if they are not germane must garner 60 votes for passage.  Most notably the amendment requires senators to pay the full charter fare for corporate flights instead of the first-class equivalent fare senators are currently paying.


[18:15]
The DeMint Amendment passes 98-0.


[17:55]
The Durbin Amendment passes 98-0.


[17:43]
The Senate is voting on the Durbin Amendment, which amends the DeMint earmark definition amendment.  The Durbin Amendment will pass, and it appears that the DeMint amendment will pass in the next vote after this.


[16:53]
Hear me now, everybody!  It's Robert Byrd (WV) on in defense of earmarks.  Earmarks are not just in appropriations bills.  Most people do not understand the purpose of earmarks.  Hear me now!  Earmarks can be found in the President's budget request.  There is no universal standard that defines what an earmark is.  The determination of what an earmark is, where it rightfully belongs under the constitution, hear me everyone, east west south and north, hear me, there is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark.  It is an explicit direction from Congress, the people's elected representatives, about how Congress should spend the people's money.  I say again, it is an explicit direction, I'm talking about earmarks, about how the federal government should spend YOUR money.  Dispute me if you like, challenge me if you like, consult the Constitution. Article I.  The power of the purse, the power of the purse!

Our duty is to prevent imprudent expenditures.  We have an obligation to guard against the corruption of any public official who would sell their soul.  But let no person suggest that the Congress errs in using earmarks to designate how the people's money should be spent.  Let me say that again.  Errrrsss, E-r-r-s.  Your money, your money, hear me, the people's money.  The bureaucrats do not know our communities, they do not see what we see.

Time runs out.  He asks how much time remains.  The majority's time is out.  Senator Byrd asks if he may have as much time as he requires.  On the other side, Saxby Chambliss (GA) is happy to yield ten minutes.  It's not a perfect process, but each earmark must path both houses, votes be made public, and the representatives are held accountable.  I say to my colleagues that we're treading on some dangerous constitutional ground with this bombast against earmarks.  The misguided cries to do away with earmarks have const'l consequences about who controls the power of the purse.  The President is even using the political environment to ask for a line item veto, help me God.  In this rush (pointing) this headlong rush we should remember why deficits have soared to unprecedented levels.  The President has not vetoed a single spending bill, or a single revenue bill.  What has wrought this circumstance (pointing out with both arms) are the president's reckless fiscal policies.

He lists examples of earmarks.  The Human Genome Project.  Is that wasteful spending?  Unmanned aerial vehicles (Predator drones).  Is that wasteful spending?  No.  He asks for two add'l minutes.  But, he acknowledges, the level of money spent under earmarking has tripled in recent years.  This is why Byrd has called for a one-year earmark moratorium and increased transparency.  Let's disclose the sponsors.  The taxpayers ought to know.  But it is essential to make sure these spending bills remain in the power of the Congress.


[16:17]
Susan Collins (ME) and Joe Lieberman (CT) have spoken on behalf of an amendment they've co-sponsored with Barack Obama (IL) and John McCain (AZ).  Their amendment would establish an Office of Public Integrity that would sit outside the Congress and serve as an oversight body concerning Congressional ethics issues.  It would be a neutral, non-partisan, third-party body.  The idea has many lawmakers uneasy with worries that they will be signing away too much power, i.e. the power to self-police, if they leave ethics enforcement to a third party.  According to Lieberman, the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that the amendment would not be german post-cloture and would therefore need sixty votes for passage.  As such, it looks like this amendment is dead in the water, and as Collins suggested, might not even come to a vote.  Note, this is one of the reasons why Reid wants to have a cloture vote on the Ethics bill and the "substitute" bill ASAP.  Once a cloture motion passes, debate is limited and amendments that are not germane need sixty votes to pass.


[13:05]
Dianne Feinstein (CA) is speaking about the Justice Department having asked 5-10 U.S. attorneys to resign, without cause, by the end of this month.  In one case Feinstein mentioned, a U.S. attorney in Arkansas was asked to resign and the Justice Department appointed a Republican operative in his place.  This Republican operative, last name Griffin, was supposedly Bush's head of opposition campaign research.

It used to be that federal district judges would appoint, and the Senate would confirm, every new U.S. attorney.  But under that majestic piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act, the Justice Department became able to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to fill "vacated" positions for the duration of a president's term.

Even more interesting, it seems that one of the U.S. attorneys being forced out is in San Diego, name of Carol Lam, who is heading the Duke Cunningham case.  Feinstein says there is no apparent reason why Lam should have to resign.  Further, Feinstein observes that the FBI is now prioritizing political corruption cases over violent crime cases.  She is concerned that the Justice Department is asking U.S. attorneys to resign just as political corruption cases will become the focus of the Justice Department.

Feinstein is introducing a bill that would amend the Patriot Act and require that federal district judges appoint interim U.S. attorneys, thus removing that power from the hands of the Justice Department, and changing the law back to the way it used to be.

Specter mentioned something about this stink in the Justice Department earlier today but he was vague and I didn't know what he was talking about.


[12:34]
According to Majority Leader Reid, the Durbin Amendment to DeMint's earmark definition amendment is the result of cooperation between Durbin and DeMint.  
Under the Durbin Amendment, the DeMint amendment's definition of "earmark" will be extended further to include "targeted tax credits," meaning bill language that targets a tax break to a group or entity, and which the Democrats wanted to make sure would be included in the definition of earmark because a tax break is the same thing as a spending appropriation.

Further, the Durbin amendment will switch the earmark disclosure reporting time from disclosure after floor debate to disclosure before floor debate.  The Dems were adamant about requiring earmark disclosure before the bill was voted on.  Reid describes the potential DeMint amendment, as amended by the Durbin amendment, as representing the best work of both parties.  If the DeMint amendment passes, as amended, the Senate will have scored a major bipartisan coup on its own behalf.


[11:15]
Chuck Grassley (IA) is back for the fifth or sixth time in the last six working days saying how the Democrat proposal (originating in the House) to lift the prohibition on government negotiation of prescription drug prices isn't going to do anybody any good.


[10:51]
Ron Wyden (OR) has been speaking at length during this period of morning business on the topic of fixing health care in America.  He presents a bill that will do just that, called the Healthy Americans Act.  It offers to every American the same type of health plan that members of Congress have.  It is a private plan.  I am not up to speed on what this health plan offers.  I would suggest checking Senator Wyden's site.  There is also information at Stand Tall For America.


[10:03]
Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) announced that the Senate will vote on at least three amendments later this afternoon.  They are DeMint Amendment #11, which defines earmarks broadly, so as to include appropriations to federal entities and language inserted into bills at the last minute (i.e. in conference reports); a Durbin second degree amendment, which would amend the DeMint amendment; and Reid's amendment on the gift and travel bans, which includes a change in the rate senators must pay when they fly corporate charter planes.

Further, Reid stated that the Senate would finish the Ethics Reform bill this week, even going into the weekend if necessary.  Votes will be limited to fifteen minutes with a five-minute grace period.  The only snag on the bill will be if a cloture motion for the bill does not pass.  At that point, leadership will have to reassess what it will do with the bill.  No more first-degree amendments can be filed after 10:30 this morning.


[10:00]
The Senate opened at 10:00 est. As the morning began, the Senate's ethics bill had a new name. What was "The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007" is now simply "The Ethics Reform Bill."

January 12, 2007: Continued Work On Senate Ethics Bill

[11:00]
Dick Durbin (IL) is now offering Amendment #44, an amendment to the DeMint amendment #11 (see immediately below).  This is a second-degree amendment, and Durbin stresses that his changes do not change the bulk of DeMint's defining language.  Rather, this second-degree amendment is focusing on two sections of language in the DeMint amendment.  One section which does not recognize tax credits/tax breaks as earmarks.  Durbin says that when Congress gives an entity a tax break it is basically appropriating money to that entity—a "tax earmark."  This is all well and good, indeed it might strengthen DeMint's amendment

Second, Durbin's amendment changes the timing of earmark disclosure in DeMint's amendment, requiring that the name(s) of lawmakers supporting an earmark be made available before votes and not 48 hours after, as is the current language in the DeMint amendment.

As far as I can tell right now, the Durbin amendment modifies the DeMint amendment in only these two ways—tax earmarks and disclosure timing.  It does not appear that Durbin is seeking to reign in DeMint's broader definition of earmarks, which would include earmarks to federal entities and earmarks inserted late in the process (during conference).  I am eager to hear DeMint's reaction to Durbin's second-degree amendment.


[10:54]
David Vitter (LA) indicates that there might be a rush to cloture on this ethics bill such that some amendments might never come up for a vote.  There will be a bunch of votes on amendments on Tuesday.  Vitter noted, however, words from Majority Leader Reid to the effect that Reid will work with Jim DeMint (SC) on the Demint Amendment (#11) which offers an alternative definition of earmarks, an amendment which fought off a tabling motion yesterday and which Reid urged his fellow senators to vote down.  DeMint's definition of earmarks is arguably much more broad than the definition Reid has offered in his "substitute" ethics bill.


[9:56]
They're gonna go ahead and vote on the Kerry amendment, sure to pass.  It prevents members of Congress from receiving their federal pensions once they've been convicted of certain crimes.  The amendment passes 87-0.


[9:44]
Russ Feingold (WI) is calling up four amendments to the S1 substitute (Amendment #3).  But he's going to explain them at a later time.


[9:39 est]
Senator John F. Kerry (MA) is now offering his amendment (#1), which would terminate the pensions of those congressmen who are guilty of corruption.  Kerry is talking about the like of Cunningham and Traficant who will enjoy pensions despite having been thrown out of Congress and sent to jail.  Under the amendment, lawmakers who are guilty of graft would receive back their contributions to benefit plans.  Kerry notes this facet of the bill as appropriate in cases where there are innocent spouses and children of the corrupt lawmakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for this debate runs out.


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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