With the Obama administration pushing health care reform legislation in its early days and the failure of Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman to come to an agreement on climate change and energy security legislation, any clean energy legislation appears dead for now. But there is some hope that the foundations of a Senate push for clean energy legislation are quietly being built.
First, Senator Kerry and Senator John McCain appear to have renewed their ability to work together with the introduction of the Senate's Libya resolution. If there is any area where the two could carry this newfound momentum, it would be energy security legislation. Kerry's credentials as a Senate liberal and a powerful committee Chairman and elder statesman would work well with McCain's background in security issues and relationship with Lieberman and Graham.
Reasonable Republicans with a background in national security have a track record of leading on climate change and clean energy compromises. Former Senator John Warner, (R-VA, no relation to current Virginia Democrat Mark Warner) in his waning days in the Senate, stood on the floor with Democrats to argue for a major climate change bill whose time had not yet come. And of course, Lindsey Graham has shown that, in better political times, he can help frame energy security issues.
In addition, Senator Richard Lugar introduced his "Lugar Practical Energy Climate Plan" on Facebook today.
So, while the solutions are varied and often contradictory, the momentum and coalitions for energy legislation appear promising. If Senator Kerry, McCain, Graham, and Lieberman could all agree on a compromise energy security package, there is still hope for the future.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Ron Johnson Watch: Things Ron Johnson Has Objected To
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is objecting to almost all unanimous consent agreements until the Senate does what he wants on the budget. Here's a running tally of things he's prevented from happening so far.
(1) Granting unanimous consent to rescind a quorum call to allow Senators to speak (Tuesday)
(2) Allowing the Senate to consider by unanimous consent the Libya Resolution crafted by Senator John Kerry and Senator John McCain
For background, see our previous post on Johnson: http://ow.ly/5sn0x
(1) Granting unanimous consent to rescind a quorum call to allow Senators to speak (Tuesday)
(2) Allowing the Senate to consider by unanimous consent the Libya Resolution crafted by Senator John Kerry and Senator John McCain
For background, see our previous post on Johnson: http://ow.ly/5sn0x
Senate Floor Schedule, Thursday, June 30th
What to expect on the Senate floor today.
9:30 am to 12pm
The Senate will come to order at 9:30 am. The chaplain will offer a prayer, the Senators will join in the pledge of allegiance, and the clerk will read a communication from the President Pro Tempore (the most senior member of the majority party, Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii) designating a less senior senator as the presiding officer.
Thereafter, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9:30 to 12. This means Senators will have time to make general speeches on virtually anything and present petitions, memorials, and bills on the floor.
12pm to 2pm: David Petraeus Nomination As Director of CIA
Under the previous unanimous consent order, the Senate will proceed to executive session at 12 to consider David Petraeus's nomination as Director of the CIA. There will be two hours of debate, equally divided. Once time is used or yielded back, the Senate will vote on the nomination without any intervening action or debate. The motion to reconsider, which is typically made by determined opposition members after a contentious vote, will not appear because it has already been "considered made and laid upon the table," killing the motion. The Senate will then resume legislative session.
It is important to note that, though the unanimous consent order specifies two hours of debate, you shouldn't necessarily expect the vote to occur at 2pm. Because support for Petraeus is high in both parties, and the order specifies that the time for debate will be equally divided, it would not be unreasonable to expect those controlling the opposition time to yield back their time and bring the debate to a close earlier.
Also, quorum calls will be charged against the two hours of debate, meaning routine calls to determine if enough Senators are present to conduct business (but usually serve as a sort of pause button in the Senate) will also consume the time designated for the Petraeus time. If you hear Senators suggesting the absence of a quorum and "asking that the time for the quorum call be equally divided," they're engaging in the routine practice of making sure the time consumed under the quorum call is equally dispersed among both sides.
9:30 am to 12pm
The Senate will come to order at 9:30 am. The chaplain will offer a prayer, the Senators will join in the pledge of allegiance, and the clerk will read a communication from the President Pro Tempore (the most senior member of the majority party, Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii) designating a less senior senator as the presiding officer.
Thereafter, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9:30 to 12. This means Senators will have time to make general speeches on virtually anything and present petitions, memorials, and bills on the floor.
12pm to 2pm: David Petraeus Nomination As Director of CIA
Under the previous unanimous consent order, the Senate will proceed to executive session at 12 to consider David Petraeus's nomination as Director of the CIA. There will be two hours of debate, equally divided. Once time is used or yielded back, the Senate will vote on the nomination without any intervening action or debate. The motion to reconsider, which is typically made by determined opposition members after a contentious vote, will not appear because it has already been "considered made and laid upon the table," killing the motion. The Senate will then resume legislative session.
It is important to note that, though the unanimous consent order specifies two hours of debate, you shouldn't necessarily expect the vote to occur at 2pm. Because support for Petraeus is high in both parties, and the order specifies that the time for debate will be equally divided, it would not be unreasonable to expect those controlling the opposition time to yield back their time and bring the debate to a close earlier.
Also, quorum calls will be charged against the two hours of debate, meaning routine calls to determine if enough Senators are present to conduct business (but usually serve as a sort of pause button in the Senate) will also consume the time designated for the Petraeus time. If you hear Senators suggesting the absence of a quorum and "asking that the time for the quorum call be equally divided," they're engaging in the routine practice of making sure the time consumed under the quorum call is equally dispersed among both sides.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Vote Results, S.679, Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act
Democrats Voting Yes:
All, except Tom Udall of New Mexico, who didn't vote (52 senators)
Republicans Voting Yes: (27 senators)
Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Brown, Cochran, Collins, Corker, Cornyn, Enzi, Graham, Hoeven, Hutchison, Johanns, Kirk, Kyl, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Portman, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, Snowe, Thune, Toomey, Wicker
Republicans Voting No: (20 senators)
Ayotte, Boozman, Burr, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Crapo, DeMint, Grassley, Hatch, Heller, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Lee, Moran, Paul, Risch, Rubio, Vitter
Total:
79 yea votes, 20 nay votes.
All, except Tom Udall of New Mexico, who didn't vote (52 senators)
Republicans Voting Yes: (27 senators)
Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Brown, Cochran, Collins, Corker, Cornyn, Enzi, Graham, Hoeven, Hutchison, Johanns, Kirk, Kyl, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Portman, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, Snowe, Thune, Toomey, Wicker
Republicans Voting No: (20 senators)
Ayotte, Boozman, Burr, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Crapo, DeMint, Grassley, Hatch, Heller, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Lee, Moran, Paul, Risch, Rubio, Vitter
Total:
79 yea votes, 20 nay votes.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Denying Unanimous Consent, Ron Johnson Forces Senate To A Halt
*Staff clarifies Ron Johnson objecting to all Senate unanimous consent requests*
It started with a juvenile speech about how, if Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin didn't get what he wanted (movement on a budget), he would start objecting to unanimous consent agreements between all of the Senators and the two parties that allow the Senate to clear procedural hurdles and operate more cooperatively than the House. If he did that, the Senate would effectively grind to a halt. In fact, to see how important we think unanimous consent is, look at the title of this blog.
Over 30 minutes passed before fellow Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama asked that the quorum call, which Ron Johnson had called for, be suspended by unanimous consent so that he could speak. This is a routine procedure that allows the Senate to proceed and allows Senators considerable freedom to speak. No one has a problem with it, which is why it is done by unanimous consent. But today, a thin voice from the back rang out, "I object." With a moment's hesitation, Senator Sessions said, "I thank the Chair."
Denying unanimous consent and getting the Senate to operate under the regular order is a cherished minority right. But there is a line between getting your voice heard and being a rookie, partisan member of the Senate who objects to everything.
The Political Implications
(1) The longer Ron Johnson continues with this, the more the spotlight will rest on him. This will mean scrutiny of his financial record as a wealthy CEO, and the $10 million compensation package he received from his former company after he concluded his $9 million Senate campaign. Johnson will be open to charges of hypocrisy, obstruction, and petulance.
(2) It will also do a disfavor to the Republican side of the budget battle that Johnson hopes to further by focusing the debate on procedural obstruction instead of policy.
(3) Johnson could alienate all members of the Senate, including members of his own party. He would be obstructing S.679 and S.116, bills dealing with expediting the confirmation process for presidential nominees that the Democratic and Republican leadership worked on together. He would also obstruct consideration of a Libya resolution that might come out of the Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon.
(4) The longer this goes on, the more this will re-ignite the Senate debate over the filibuster and secret holds. S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which is pending now, is the result of a bipartisan response to the last debate over Senate rules, which erupted at the beginning of this Congress.
It started with a juvenile speech about how, if Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin didn't get what he wanted (movement on a budget), he would start objecting to unanimous consent agreements between all of the Senators and the two parties that allow the Senate to clear procedural hurdles and operate more cooperatively than the House. If he did that, the Senate would effectively grind to a halt. In fact, to see how important we think unanimous consent is, look at the title of this blog.
Over 30 minutes passed before fellow Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama asked that the quorum call, which Ron Johnson had called for, be suspended by unanimous consent so that he could speak. This is a routine procedure that allows the Senate to proceed and allows Senators considerable freedom to speak. No one has a problem with it, which is why it is done by unanimous consent. But today, a thin voice from the back rang out, "I object." With a moment's hesitation, Senator Sessions said, "I thank the Chair."
Denying unanimous consent and getting the Senate to operate under the regular order is a cherished minority right. But there is a line between getting your voice heard and being a rookie, partisan member of the Senate who objects to everything.
The Political Implications
(1) The longer Ron Johnson continues with this, the more the spotlight will rest on him. This will mean scrutiny of his financial record as a wealthy CEO, and the $10 million compensation package he received from his former company after he concluded his $9 million Senate campaign. Johnson will be open to charges of hypocrisy, obstruction, and petulance.
(2) It will also do a disfavor to the Republican side of the budget battle that Johnson hopes to further by focusing the debate on procedural obstruction instead of policy.
(3) Johnson could alienate all members of the Senate, including members of his own party. He would be obstructing S.679 and S.116, bills dealing with expediting the confirmation process for presidential nominees that the Democratic and Republican leadership worked on together. He would also obstruct consideration of a Libya resolution that might come out of the Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon.
(4) The longer this goes on, the more this will re-ignite the Senate debate over the filibuster and secret holds. S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which is pending now, is the result of a bipartisan response to the last debate over Senate rules, which erupted at the beginning of this Congress.
Following The Debate On S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act
This will be updated as the debate progresses. Refresh when needed.
2:15pm: The Senate, under a previous unanimous consent order, resumes consideration of S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.
Since the managers of the bill are not on the floor, Senator Orrin Hatch is speaking about the economy, bailouts, and unions.
2:30pm: Orrin Hatch yields the floor. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is recognized for up to ten minutes on a political/economic/budget speech.
2:34pm: Senator Ron Johnson just threatened to withold his consent to Senate unanimous consent motions (which allow the Senate to run) unless the Senate starts moving on a budget.
3:17pm: The Senate remains in a quorum call (pausing for the clerk to call the roll to secure a quorum for the Senate to do business)
3:34pm: A Senator (Senator Sessions of Alabama?) asked that the quorum call be dispensed with so that he could speak, and someone (Senator Ron Johnson?) objected, putting the Senate back in quorum call.
4:08pm: Over an hour after the last Senator spoke, the Senate is still in quorum call.
5:20pm: The Senate is officially stuck in quorum call because of Ron Johnson. See here: http://ow.ly/5sn0x
6:04pm: The clerk sped up the quorum call. The Chair declared that a quorum was not present. Majority Leader Harry Reid was recognized. Reid moved to ask the sergeant-at-arms to request the attendance of the absent senators, on which there is currently a call of the yeas-and-nays.
6:30pm: Sen. Ron Johnson yields on his objections to unanimous consent for S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which has broad bipartisan support - including the Republican leadership.
Senator Ron Johnson recognized for up to 15 minutes, after which the Senate will adjourn until tomorrow.
Wednesday:
The Senate is voting on amendments to S.679. Once those are disposed of, there may be a roll call vote on the whole thing at an as-yet unspecified time.
2:15pm: The Senate, under a previous unanimous consent order, resumes consideration of S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.
Since the managers of the bill are not on the floor, Senator Orrin Hatch is speaking about the economy, bailouts, and unions.
2:30pm: Orrin Hatch yields the floor. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is recognized for up to ten minutes on a political/economic/budget speech.
2:34pm: Senator Ron Johnson just threatened to withold his consent to Senate unanimous consent motions (which allow the Senate to run) unless the Senate starts moving on a budget.
3:17pm: The Senate remains in a quorum call (pausing for the clerk to call the roll to secure a quorum for the Senate to do business)
3:34pm: A Senator (Senator Sessions of Alabama?) asked that the quorum call be dispensed with so that he could speak, and someone (Senator Ron Johnson?) objected, putting the Senate back in quorum call.
4:08pm: Over an hour after the last Senator spoke, the Senate is still in quorum call.
5:20pm: The Senate is officially stuck in quorum call because of Ron Johnson. See here: http://ow.ly/5sn0x
6:04pm: The clerk sped up the quorum call. The Chair declared that a quorum was not present. Majority Leader Harry Reid was recognized. Reid moved to ask the sergeant-at-arms to request the attendance of the absent senators, on which there is currently a call of the yeas-and-nays.
6:30pm: Sen. Ron Johnson yields on his objections to unanimous consent for S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which has broad bipartisan support - including the Republican leadership.
Senator Ron Johnson recognized for up to 15 minutes, after which the Senate will adjourn until tomorrow.
Wednesday:
The Senate is voting on amendments to S.679. Once those are disposed of, there may be a roll call vote on the whole thing at an as-yet unspecified time.
Senate Foreign Relations To Consider Libya Resolution This Afternoon
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee completed a hearing on Libya war powers this morning, and will proceed to a business meeting this afternoon to debate whether to report the Libya resolution to the Senate floor. While we won't go over the hearing in detail, we will provide some highlights to look for if you go back and watch the hearing on C-SPAN. We'll also tell you where we think the members of the committee fall on the Libya issue.
Probable Committee Votes on Libya Authorization
YES: Kerry (D-MA), Boxer (D-CA), Menendez (D-NJ), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Shaheen (D-NH), Coons (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL), Rubio (R-FL), Isakson (R-GA), Barrasso (R-WY)
NO: Webb (D-VA), Lugar (R-IN), Corker (R-TN), Risch (R-ID), Lee (R-UT), Inhofe (R-OK)
Unknown:
Tom Udall (D-NM): has called Libya operation a "slippery slope" but may feel pressure from other Democrats
These are just guesses based on on-the-record statements and co-sponsorships.
Highlights From The Hearing
(1) Rare Disagreement in Opening Statements
Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, the chairman and ranking member respectively, have proven able to work together on matters of foreign policy and tend not to disagree overtly. The spirit of comity still existed, but Senator Kerry clearly supported the administration's policy on Libya while Senator Lugar questioned the national interests, costs, legality, and consultation behind the policy.
(2) Kerry-Corker Fireworks
The Chairman usually gets the first opportunity to ask questions, but Senator Kerry reserved his time to intervene at a later point. Shortly after Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) finished his round of questions, Senator Kerry jumped in to state that Senator Corker's assertions were not factually accurate. Senator Corker had suggested that the President was deliberately "sticking a stick" in the eyes of Congress by interpreting the law extremely narrowly and refusing to consult (to call for authorization, make witnesses available, or come to briefings) the Senate when there was no real benefit to not consulting the Senate. Senator Kerry said that a communication from the President to the Congress had asked for authorization and that it was the Senate that hadn't taken action. Kerry appeared to express anger that so much of the Senate's ire was directed at the President when the Senate hadn't taken action. Senator Corker appeared somewhat red-faced but managed to keep calm and handled the debate well.
(3) Witness Waffling
Harold Koh, the State Department's legal counsel, failed to make a satisfactory case and attempted to dodge most yes-or-no questions from Senators. Aggressive questioning from Senators yielded the same talking points. Koh repeatedly attempted to take broader issues related to legality and the national interest and narrow them to the hostilities provision of the War Powers Act, insisting that the administration "acknowledged the constitutionality" of the War Powers Act, but that the 2011 Congress shouldn't decide on the basis of a law made in the context of Vietnam.
Probable Committee Votes on Libya Authorization
YES: Kerry (D-MA), Boxer (D-CA), Menendez (D-NJ), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Shaheen (D-NH), Coons (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL), Rubio (R-FL), Isakson (R-GA), Barrasso (R-WY)
NO: Webb (D-VA), Lugar (R-IN), Corker (R-TN), Risch (R-ID), Lee (R-UT), Inhofe (R-OK)
Unknown:
Tom Udall (D-NM): has called Libya operation a "slippery slope" but may feel pressure from other Democrats
These are just guesses based on on-the-record statements and co-sponsorships.
Highlights From The Hearing
(1) Rare Disagreement in Opening Statements
Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, the chairman and ranking member respectively, have proven able to work together on matters of foreign policy and tend not to disagree overtly. The spirit of comity still existed, but Senator Kerry clearly supported the administration's policy on Libya while Senator Lugar questioned the national interests, costs, legality, and consultation behind the policy.
(2) Kerry-Corker Fireworks
The Chairman usually gets the first opportunity to ask questions, but Senator Kerry reserved his time to intervene at a later point. Shortly after Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) finished his round of questions, Senator Kerry jumped in to state that Senator Corker's assertions were not factually accurate. Senator Corker had suggested that the President was deliberately "sticking a stick" in the eyes of Congress by interpreting the law extremely narrowly and refusing to consult (to call for authorization, make witnesses available, or come to briefings) the Senate when there was no real benefit to not consulting the Senate. Senator Kerry said that a communication from the President to the Congress had asked for authorization and that it was the Senate that hadn't taken action. Kerry appeared to express anger that so much of the Senate's ire was directed at the President when the Senate hadn't taken action. Senator Corker appeared somewhat red-faced but managed to keep calm and handled the debate well.
(3) Witness Waffling
Harold Koh, the State Department's legal counsel, failed to make a satisfactory case and attempted to dodge most yes-or-no questions from Senators. Aggressive questioning from Senators yielded the same talking points. Koh repeatedly attempted to take broader issues related to legality and the national interest and narrow them to the hostilities provision of the War Powers Act, insisting that the administration "acknowledged the constitutionality" of the War Powers Act, but that the 2011 Congress shouldn't decide on the basis of a law made in the context of Vietnam.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Senate Schedule, Week of June 27th
Monday
The Senate will convene at 2pm and will be in a period of morning business from 2pm to 6pm. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will be recognized for up to 90 minutes at 4pm. Morning business can involve the introduction of bills, resolutions, petitions, memorials, etc. The Senate provides for time for Senators to speak on a topic of their choice by unanimous consent.
Tuesday
(1) The Senate will convene at 9:30 am. The Senate will proceed to executive session (for considering executive branch matters like nominations and treaties) at 10 am on Tuesday, June 28th. There will be two hours of debate on three nominations - for Deputy Attorney General and two Assistant Attorney Generals. The Senate will then vote on the nominations without any further intervening action or debate.
(2) The Senate will then return to legislative session at 2:15pm. S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, will be the pending business. All first-degree amendments should have been filed last week. The Senate will thus debate and vote on all amendments. It is not clear how long this will take or what agreements have been reached, but we will update you once the schedule becomes more apparent. When the amendments have all been dealt with, the bill will be read a third time and will be subject to a 60 vote threshold for passage (agreed to by unanimous consent). For more discussion of the bill, see here: http://ow.ly/5qCI6
Rest of the Week
While the Senate's schedule past Tuesday is not clear, we know that S.116, a bill to expedite the confirmation process for certain nominees, will become the pending business immediately after disposition of S.679. Senator Coburn will offer an amendment, which will be subject to a two-thirds threshold (agreed to by unanimous consent).
We will update this as the Senate makes progress. The Senate is set to enter its July 4th recess at the end of the week.
The Senate will convene at 2pm and will be in a period of morning business from 2pm to 6pm. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will be recognized for up to 90 minutes at 4pm. Morning business can involve the introduction of bills, resolutions, petitions, memorials, etc. The Senate provides for time for Senators to speak on a topic of their choice by unanimous consent.
Tuesday
(1) The Senate will convene at 9:30 am. The Senate will proceed to executive session (for considering executive branch matters like nominations and treaties) at 10 am on Tuesday, June 28th. There will be two hours of debate on three nominations - for Deputy Attorney General and two Assistant Attorney Generals. The Senate will then vote on the nominations without any further intervening action or debate.
(2) The Senate will then return to legislative session at 2:15pm. S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, will be the pending business. All first-degree amendments should have been filed last week. The Senate will thus debate and vote on all amendments. It is not clear how long this will take or what agreements have been reached, but we will update you once the schedule becomes more apparent. When the amendments have all been dealt with, the bill will be read a third time and will be subject to a 60 vote threshold for passage (agreed to by unanimous consent). For more discussion of the bill, see here: http://ow.ly/5qCI6
Rest of the Week
While the Senate's schedule past Tuesday is not clear, we know that S.116, a bill to expedite the confirmation process for certain nominees, will become the pending business immediately after disposition of S.679. Senator Coburn will offer an amendment, which will be subject to a two-thirds threshold (agreed to by unanimous consent).
We will update this as the Senate makes progress. The Senate is set to enter its July 4th recess at the end of the week.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Floor Fight Watch: S.679 Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011
The most important possible measure coming up for the week of June 27 is the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act. While the Senate has the constitutional right to consent to all presidential nominees, there are many minor but important nominees that are delayed or never confirmed because of the process. The leadership of both parties has been working on an agreement to eliminate those posts from the Senate confirmation process. S.679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, is the result of work by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). Both are members of the party leadership and are (respectively) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Chances of Passage
Seven Republicans are on the record as supporters of this legislation. Senators Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Johanns (NE), Jon Kyl (AZ, Minority Whip), Dick Lugar (IN), Mitch McConnell (KY, Minority Leader). The 53 Senate Democrats will likely stay united in favor of this bill. Since this bill is supported by both the Democratic and Republican leadership, freshmen Republican will also likely go along with the bill. Any opposition will come from the more senior or more conservative Republicans. If the bill were to come to a roll call vote, 65-70 votes in favor would be a safe, low estimate.
Roadblocks
While the Republican leadership played an active role in putting S.679 together, Republican members who feel that aggressively filibustering presidential nominees is an important tool may express discontent with the bill. In practical terms, this means that Republicans introduced several amendments to retain Senate confirmation for certain positions. These amendments are a likely source of delay as the bill wraps up. Passage of the bill was expected last week.
Procedure: What You'll See On The Floor
Because of the broad bipartisan support for the bill, the Senate leadership has opted to consider and pass the bill by unanimous consent. This reinforces the good will and cooperation between the two parties on this bill. Nevertheless, if there are significant movements to fight the bill and force delays, the Senate could always invoke cloture. This is a 60 vote process to limit debate and amendments. While the Senate could easily achieve cloture on this bill, the leadership hopes not to resort to cloture. The Senate will likely proceed slowly, but surely by unanimous consent.
First-degree amendments (amendments directly affecting the text of the bill) to S.679 should have been filed by 5pm last Thursday, so any further amendments will be second-degree (amendments amending first-degree amendments). Expect to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ask unanimous consent that all second-degree amendments be filed by a certain deadline. The Senate would then proceed to set a new timetable for consideration of those amendments and the underlying bill.
We will have more updates as the bill progresses on the floor.
Chances of Passage
Seven Republicans are on the record as supporters of this legislation. Senators Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Johanns (NE), Jon Kyl (AZ, Minority Whip), Dick Lugar (IN), Mitch McConnell (KY, Minority Leader). The 53 Senate Democrats will likely stay united in favor of this bill. Since this bill is supported by both the Democratic and Republican leadership, freshmen Republican will also likely go along with the bill. Any opposition will come from the more senior or more conservative Republicans. If the bill were to come to a roll call vote, 65-70 votes in favor would be a safe, low estimate.
Roadblocks
While the Republican leadership played an active role in putting S.679 together, Republican members who feel that aggressively filibustering presidential nominees is an important tool may express discontent with the bill. In practical terms, this means that Republicans introduced several amendments to retain Senate confirmation for certain positions. These amendments are a likely source of delay as the bill wraps up. Passage of the bill was expected last week.
Procedure: What You'll See On The Floor
Because of the broad bipartisan support for the bill, the Senate leadership has opted to consider and pass the bill by unanimous consent. This reinforces the good will and cooperation between the two parties on this bill. Nevertheless, if there are significant movements to fight the bill and force delays, the Senate could always invoke cloture. This is a 60 vote process to limit debate and amendments. While the Senate could easily achieve cloture on this bill, the leadership hopes not to resort to cloture. The Senate will likely proceed slowly, but surely by unanimous consent.
First-degree amendments (amendments directly affecting the text of the bill) to S.679 should have been filed by 5pm last Thursday, so any further amendments will be second-degree (amendments amending first-degree amendments). Expect to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ask unanimous consent that all second-degree amendments be filed by a certain deadline. The Senate would then proceed to set a new timetable for consideration of those amendments and the underlying bill.
We will have more updates as the bill progresses on the floor.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Kerry and McCain Introduce Libya Resolution: Floor Fight Watch
Senator John Kerry (Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Democrat of Massachusetts) and Senator John McCain (ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee) have introduced a Senate resolution on Libya to counter challenges to the legitimacy of the administration's Libya policy. At this point, the resolution seems sure to garner a majority. However, Senator Kerry and Senator McCain actually have a harder task than the opposition because of political and procedural factors, which are detailed below.
The Expectations Game
If and when the Senate votes on the resolution, no one will expect the resolution to fail. That's why the narrative in the press will not be about whether the resolution passes or fails. The narrative will be determined by how strong the opposition vote is, and who votes against the resolution. That's why the opposition to the Libya resolution will only need to garner a substantial minority to dominate the headlines, while Senator Kerry and Senator McCain need to garner more than a simple majority. They need to gain substantial bipartisan consensus in favor of the resolution.
The Procedural Game
While it's unlikely that the opposition to the resolution would try to block the resolution entirely, there are several procedural factors that could prolong the debate. Senate resolutions must "lie over under the rule," meaning that the resolution must be available for Senate consideration for one legislative day before a vote is held. One legislative day is sometimes, but not always, equivalent to one calendar day. A legislative day ends when the Senate adjourns, creating a new legislative day. Therefore, if the Senate blocks adjournment and merely recesses, the pending business at the time of the recess is still the pending business when the Senate returns and it is still the same legislative day, meaning the resolution would not be considered. One way to circumvent this is to achieve unanimous consent. However, one senator can prevent the Senate from achieving unanimity. Thus, while the resolution might come to a vote eventually, a determined and tactically sound opposition could cause enough delay to make a lot of noise.
The Expectations Game
If and when the Senate votes on the resolution, no one will expect the resolution to fail. That's why the narrative in the press will not be about whether the resolution passes or fails. The narrative will be determined by how strong the opposition vote is, and who votes against the resolution. That's why the opposition to the Libya resolution will only need to garner a substantial minority to dominate the headlines, while Senator Kerry and Senator McCain need to garner more than a simple majority. They need to gain substantial bipartisan consensus in favor of the resolution.
The Procedural Game
While it's unlikely that the opposition to the resolution would try to block the resolution entirely, there are several procedural factors that could prolong the debate. Senate resolutions must "lie over under the rule," meaning that the resolution must be available for Senate consideration for one legislative day before a vote is held. One legislative day is sometimes, but not always, equivalent to one calendar day. A legislative day ends when the Senate adjourns, creating a new legislative day. Therefore, if the Senate blocks adjournment and merely recesses, the pending business at the time of the recess is still the pending business when the Senate returns and it is still the same legislative day, meaning the resolution would not be considered. One way to circumvent this is to achieve unanimous consent. However, one senator can prevent the Senate from achieving unanimity. Thus, while the resolution might come to a vote eventually, a determined and tactically sound opposition could cause enough delay to make a lot of noise.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Senate Rebukes The Big Banks
In a bipartisan vote last Wednesday, the U.S. Senate dealt a blow to big banks by rejecting the Tester-Corker amendment to the Economic Development Revitalization Act. Check out the details below to see how it happened, who the major players were, and where your Senator stands.
The Issue: Debit Card "Interchange" Fees
The amendment addressed debit card "interchange" regulation. Every time a merchant accepts a debit card payment, banks charge a certain additional fee to process the fee. Large retailers and small businesses alike absorb large costs when the consumer chooses to pay with a debit card. In the past, Congress has delayed action on interchange fees by attempting to "study" the issue further. A recent Federal Reserve study was the result of such a delay. Taking place over many months and receiving thousands of comments in an open process, the Federal Reserve recommended capping these debit card fees at 12%. The Tester-Corker amendment was an effort to request further study of interchange fees and delay Senate action.
Major Player 1: The Lobbyists
Commuters in Washington, DC, got a fairly unique look at this battle. As The Hill noted, this was the biggest K Street lobbying battle of the year. On DC's Metro trains, a group of banks and banking associations collectively calling themselves the "Electronic Payments Coalition" plastered as many as 7 or 8 advertisements in some Metro cars saying "Washington is helping giant retailers clean out your wallet" by considering regulation of debit card interchange fees. In DC's expensive market, there's something disingenuous about a coalition of banks that can afford to pay for multiple ads trying to take the side of small business and consumers. One of our contributors says that there were also some counter-ads from groups opposing the Electronic Payments Coalition.
Major Senate supporters of delaying interchange regulation
The amendment in question was sponsored by Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. Senator Tester is a relatively moderate Democrat. Senator Corker is a conservative Republican who has nevertheless gained a reputation as someone who can work with Democrats. He is a key figure on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and voted for the New START Treaty. He gained considerable wealth from his Tennessee construction business and tends to err on the side of less regulation and support for Wall Street.
Senator Dick Durbin
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin led the effort to prevent the Senate from achieving the 60 votes necessary to delay regulation by approving the Tester-Corker Amendment. Senator Durbin is a strong liberal with the second-highest leadership position in the Senate Democratic Caucus and a leading role as a member of the Gang of 5 (formerly 6) senators seeking a bipartisan solution to deficit reduction. He is known for being a good floor leader and someone who targets his floor speeches to the wider audience, distilling complex issues so that constituents can understand them. Nevertheless, as the votes below show, his leadership on this issue doesn't mean that his position was a Democratic position.
The final vote was 54 for, 45 against, 1 not voting. Because the 60 vote threshold wasn't achieved the Tester-Corker Amendment failed. The majority of Republicans (34) voted for Tester-Corker, and the majority of Democrats (33) voted with Durbin. Nevertheless, many Democrats and Republicans alike voted against the majority of their party. Below are the Republicans who voted with Durbin and the Democrats who voted with Tester-Corker. If your Senator is not here, you can assume he/she voted with the majority of their party (except for Senator Lieberman, who didn't vote at all).
Republican Senators Voting Against the Tester-Corker Amendment To Delay Interchange Regulation (12)
John Barrasso (WY), Scott Brown (MA), Richard Burr (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Enzi (WY), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Johnny Isakson (GA), Richard Lugar (IN), Olympia Snowe (ME), David Vitter (LA)
Democratic Senators Voting For Tester-Corker (19)
Dan Akaka (HI), Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Carper (DE), Chris Coons (DE), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Tim Johnson (SD), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Warner (VA), Jim Webb (VA)
The Issue: Debit Card "Interchange" Fees
The amendment addressed debit card "interchange" regulation. Every time a merchant accepts a debit card payment, banks charge a certain additional fee to process the fee. Large retailers and small businesses alike absorb large costs when the consumer chooses to pay with a debit card. In the past, Congress has delayed action on interchange fees by attempting to "study" the issue further. A recent Federal Reserve study was the result of such a delay. Taking place over many months and receiving thousands of comments in an open process, the Federal Reserve recommended capping these debit card fees at 12%. The Tester-Corker amendment was an effort to request further study of interchange fees and delay Senate action.
Major Player 1: The Lobbyists
Commuters in Washington, DC, got a fairly unique look at this battle. As The Hill noted, this was the biggest K Street lobbying battle of the year. On DC's Metro trains, a group of banks and banking associations collectively calling themselves the "Electronic Payments Coalition" plastered as many as 7 or 8 advertisements in some Metro cars saying "Washington is helping giant retailers clean out your wallet" by considering regulation of debit card interchange fees. In DC's expensive market, there's something disingenuous about a coalition of banks that can afford to pay for multiple ads trying to take the side of small business and consumers. One of our contributors says that there were also some counter-ads from groups opposing the Electronic Payments Coalition.
Major Senate supporters of delaying interchange regulation
The amendment in question was sponsored by Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. Senator Tester is a relatively moderate Democrat. Senator Corker is a conservative Republican who has nevertheless gained a reputation as someone who can work with Democrats. He is a key figure on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and voted for the New START Treaty. He gained considerable wealth from his Tennessee construction business and tends to err on the side of less regulation and support for Wall Street.
Senator Dick Durbin
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin led the effort to prevent the Senate from achieving the 60 votes necessary to delay regulation by approving the Tester-Corker Amendment. Senator Durbin is a strong liberal with the second-highest leadership position in the Senate Democratic Caucus and a leading role as a member of the Gang of 5 (formerly 6) senators seeking a bipartisan solution to deficit reduction. He is known for being a good floor leader and someone who targets his floor speeches to the wider audience, distilling complex issues so that constituents can understand them. Nevertheless, as the votes below show, his leadership on this issue doesn't mean that his position was a Democratic position.
The final vote was 54 for, 45 against, 1 not voting. Because the 60 vote threshold wasn't achieved the Tester-Corker Amendment failed. The majority of Republicans (34) voted for Tester-Corker, and the majority of Democrats (33) voted with Durbin. Nevertheless, many Democrats and Republicans alike voted against the majority of their party. Below are the Republicans who voted with Durbin and the Democrats who voted with Tester-Corker. If your Senator is not here, you can assume he/she voted with the majority of their party (except for Senator Lieberman, who didn't vote at all).
Republican Senators Voting Against the Tester-Corker Amendment To Delay Interchange Regulation (12)
John Barrasso (WY), Scott Brown (MA), Richard Burr (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Enzi (WY), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Johnny Isakson (GA), Richard Lugar (IN), Olympia Snowe (ME), David Vitter (LA)
Democratic Senators Voting For Tester-Corker (19)
Dan Akaka (HI), Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Carper (DE), Chris Coons (DE), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Tim Johnson (SD), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Warner (VA), Jim Webb (VA)
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Is Libya The Obama Administration's Biggest Political Blunder?
The Obama administration has recently come under fire from several members of Congress for the manner in which the United States went to war in Libya. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and others filed a lawsuit alleging that the Obama administration failed to comply with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which basically set timetables for informing Congress of hostilities and seeking authorization. It came about as a result of Congress's failure to protect its part in exercising serious oversight over war during Vietnam and the Nixon administration's incursion into Cambodia.
Virtually every administration since then has taken the line that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the president's power as commander-in-chief. The Obama administration asserts that, because the Libya operation doesn't involve "hostilities" and involves the U.S. in a limited role, congressional authorization is not required.
Putting aside the questions of constitutionality and legitimacy, is the Obama administration taking the right stance on Libya politically?
Because the Obama administration didn't ask members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to put their views on the record by voting while pro-intervention sentiment was at the highest point, it allowed Libya to become a potential campaign issue and brought the current debate over war powers upon itself. Remember when the Obama administration appeared reluctant to intervene in Libya, and Senator John Kerry (D-MA, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ, ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee) led the charge for a no-flight zone? Other Democrats and Republicans seemed afraid to put their views on the record for fear of pushing against the pro-intervention momentum. By asking for a vote early on, President Obama could have locked in this momentum, given the Libyan intervention an aura of bipartisan legitimacy, and made it difficult for members of Congress to attack either the practical or constitutional basis of the intervention later on.
Now, Republicans like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor can talk as if they always opposed intervention and re-define the narrative. Because the Obama administration failed to even acknowledge constitutional checks and balances and seek some form of authorization, it allowed the debate to become about the War Powers Resolution itself.
So, whether you think the United States was right to intervene or not, one thing is clear: when it came to securing the political basis for acting in Libya, the Obama administration made a huge blunder by not asking for authorization early on.
Virtually every administration since then has taken the line that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the president's power as commander-in-chief. The Obama administration asserts that, because the Libya operation doesn't involve "hostilities" and involves the U.S. in a limited role, congressional authorization is not required.
Putting aside the questions of constitutionality and legitimacy, is the Obama administration taking the right stance on Libya politically?
Because the Obama administration didn't ask members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to put their views on the record by voting while pro-intervention sentiment was at the highest point, it allowed Libya to become a potential campaign issue and brought the current debate over war powers upon itself. Remember when the Obama administration appeared reluctant to intervene in Libya, and Senator John Kerry (D-MA, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ, ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee) led the charge for a no-flight zone? Other Democrats and Republicans seemed afraid to put their views on the record for fear of pushing against the pro-intervention momentum. By asking for a vote early on, President Obama could have locked in this momentum, given the Libyan intervention an aura of bipartisan legitimacy, and made it difficult for members of Congress to attack either the practical or constitutional basis of the intervention later on.
Now, Republicans like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor can talk as if they always opposed intervention and re-define the narrative. Because the Obama administration failed to even acknowledge constitutional checks and balances and seek some form of authorization, it allowed the debate to become about the War Powers Resolution itself.
So, whether you think the United States was right to intervene or not, one thing is clear: when it came to securing the political basis for acting in Libya, the Obama administration made a huge blunder by not asking for authorization early on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)