50 yeas, 49 nays - cloture motion failed (60 votes in the affirmative required)
Democrats voting nay:
Joe Manchin (West Virginia, Conservative/Blue Dog Dem)
Bernie Sanders (Vermont, ultra-liberal independent)
Harry Reid (Nevada, Majority Leader)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska, Blue Dog Democrat)
So, Manchin and Nelson probably voted the views of their more conservative constituents because the vote would have failed with or without their votes. They would probably work with the Majority Leader if their votes would make the difference.
Senator Sanders votes with Democrats most of the time but probably opposes most of the solutions presented on an ideological basis, from the left side of the spectrum.
The Majority Leader probably voted against his own proposal as a tactical maneuver to facilitate a recapitulation of the vote if necessary.
Not voting: James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)
Yeas
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Nays
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Senators Reid and McConnell Should Have Used Gang of Six As Basis for Bipartisan Deal
For some time now, we've been pushing hard for the Gang of Six plan to be used as the basis for a debt ceiling deal. We've recognized some of the problems with such an approach in a previous post, and we concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs.
The Gang of Six proposal is bipartisan because it is the result of lengthy negotiations between three Democratic Senators (Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad, and Mark Warner) and three Republican Senators (Tom Coburn, Saxby Chambliss, and Mike Crapo). When the final result was introduced on the Hill, it piqued the interest of Republican and Democratic Senators alike and suggested that the proposal could garner the 60 votes necessary to end debate. It's also the only proposal that raises revenue by closing tax loopholes (a gain for Republicans because it doesn't raise taxes, and a gain for Democrats because it allows for revenue to come into the government as part of a final deal), and it contains spending cuts and tax reforms that Republicans like.
By contrast, the Reid proposal on the table now seems unlikely to beat a filibuster. The Democrats would have to vote en masse for it and gain at least 7 Republican votes - a very tall order in this political climate. In addition, it's simply bad legislation. The American people want a bold, bipartisan deal that provides some gain for both sides. Neither Reid's proposal or any House proposal provides the sort of grisly but effective compromise governance that Americans want, and none of those proposals will pass in the Senate.
If and when the Senate deadlocks on the Reid proposal, the Senate leadership will have to account for why they didn't work hard enough on the only bipartisan proposal in town.
Previous Posts On The Debt Ceiling Debate:
The Gang of Six has the best shot at getting the House and Senate votes to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Here's why
Details about what's inside the Gang of Six proposal
Republicans had their "Cut, Cap, Balance" bill. Democrats now need to vote on their own dream bill
From the Cayman Islands To Congress: Why The Senate Should Vote On Closing Tax Loopholes
S.1323: Senate rejects "shared sacrifice" by millionaires in deficit reduction - vote results and analysis
S.1323: Should taxing millionaires be on the table for deficit reduction? The Senate votes to proceed to the measure 69-27
S.1323: Why we got the first vote wrong, and what to expect in the upcoming budget debate
S.1323: Today, the Senate will draw the battle lines in the deficit debate with a vote that will fail. Find out why and how.
The Gang of Six proposal is bipartisan because it is the result of lengthy negotiations between three Democratic Senators (Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad, and Mark Warner) and three Republican Senators (Tom Coburn, Saxby Chambliss, and Mike Crapo). When the final result was introduced on the Hill, it piqued the interest of Republican and Democratic Senators alike and suggested that the proposal could garner the 60 votes necessary to end debate. It's also the only proposal that raises revenue by closing tax loopholes (a gain for Republicans because it doesn't raise taxes, and a gain for Democrats because it allows for revenue to come into the government as part of a final deal), and it contains spending cuts and tax reforms that Republicans like.
By contrast, the Reid proposal on the table now seems unlikely to beat a filibuster. The Democrats would have to vote en masse for it and gain at least 7 Republican votes - a very tall order in this political climate. In addition, it's simply bad legislation. The American people want a bold, bipartisan deal that provides some gain for both sides. Neither Reid's proposal or any House proposal provides the sort of grisly but effective compromise governance that Americans want, and none of those proposals will pass in the Senate.
If and when the Senate deadlocks on the Reid proposal, the Senate leadership will have to account for why they didn't work hard enough on the only bipartisan proposal in town.
Previous Posts On The Debt Ceiling Debate:
The Gang of Six has the best shot at getting the House and Senate votes to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Here's why
Details about what's inside the Gang of Six proposal
Republicans had their "Cut, Cap, Balance" bill. Democrats now need to vote on their own dream bill
From the Cayman Islands To Congress: Why The Senate Should Vote On Closing Tax Loopholes
S.1323: Senate rejects "shared sacrifice" by millionaires in deficit reduction - vote results and analysis
S.1323: Should taxing millionaires be on the table for deficit reduction? The Senate votes to proceed to the measure 69-27
S.1323: Why we got the first vote wrong, and what to expect in the upcoming budget debate
S.1323: Today, the Senate will draw the battle lines in the deficit debate with a vote that will fail. Find out why and how.
Congressional Timetable: Debt Ceiling Debate S.679 and S.1323
House passes Boehner bill as Substitute for S.627
The House of Representatives agrees to a substitute amendment to S.627 and sends the message to the Senate. This is basically the Boehner bill with a balanced budget amendment. S.627 is actually an old Senate bill sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy dealing with the Freedom of Information Act. What the House has done is to take the old bill and offer Speaker Boehner's bill as a substitute amendment. The amendment would strike all the old provisions relating to the Freedom of Information Act and replace it with the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Senate action on S.627
(1) Motion to instruct the sergeant-at-arms to request the attendance of absent Senators agreed to
(2) Motion to concur in the House amendment to S.627 described above.
(3) Motion to table the above motion, killing Boehner's bill. Agreed to 59-41. The following Republican Senators crossed party lines to vote with Democrats to kill the bill:
Jim DeMint (South Carolina)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
David Vitter (Louisiana)
Senators DeMint, Lee, Paul, and Vitter can be called Tea Party Senators and likely voted with some of their conservative collaegues in the House because the bill wasn't conservative enough. It's not clear why Senators Graham and Hatch voted to table, but it may be either for the same reason or because they preferred an alternative course of action.
Forthcoming Action
Under a previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany S.627. The time between 1:30pm and 7:30pm will be equally divided and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees in alternating 30 minute blocks, with the Majority controlling the first half and the Minority controlling the second half.
The time between 7:30pm and 8:30pm will be equally divided and controlled between the Majority and Minority. The Republicans will control the first 15 minutes and the Democrats will control the last 15 minutes.
Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to commit the message to the Senate Budget Committee with instructions to report an amendment.
Expect the action in the Senate to be on amendments to the House message containing Democratic proposals on the debt ceiling. Senator Reid, Senator McConnell and others may take the time today to negotiate on something that could pass with bipartisan support.
The House has vowed to vote in the negative on a Reid debt ceiling proposal.
This page and our twitter feed (twitter.com/USSenateWatch)will be updated as developments occur.
Previous Posts On The Debt Ceiling Debate:
Republicans had their "Cut, Cap, Balance" bill. Democrats now need to vote on their own dream bill
The Gang of Six has the best shot at getting the House and Senate votes to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Here's why
Details about what's inside the Gang of Six proposal
From the Cayman Islands To Congress: Why The Senate Should Vote On Closing Tax Loopholes
S.1323: Senate rejects "shared sacrifice" by millionaires in deficit reduction - vote results and analysis
S.1323: Should taxing millionaires be on the table for deficit reduction? The Senate votes to proceed to the measure 69-27
S.1323: Why we got the first vote wrong, and what to expect in the upcoming budget debate
S.1323: Today, the Senate will draw the battle lines in the deficit debate with a vote that will fail. Find out why and how.
The House of Representatives agrees to a substitute amendment to S.627 and sends the message to the Senate. This is basically the Boehner bill with a balanced budget amendment. S.627 is actually an old Senate bill sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy dealing with the Freedom of Information Act. What the House has done is to take the old bill and offer Speaker Boehner's bill as a substitute amendment. The amendment would strike all the old provisions relating to the Freedom of Information Act and replace it with the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Senate action on S.627
(1) Motion to instruct the sergeant-at-arms to request the attendance of absent Senators agreed to
(2) Motion to concur in the House amendment to S.627 described above.
(3) Motion to table the above motion, killing Boehner's bill. Agreed to 59-41. The following Republican Senators crossed party lines to vote with Democrats to kill the bill:
Jim DeMint (South Carolina)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
David Vitter (Louisiana)
Senators DeMint, Lee, Paul, and Vitter can be called Tea Party Senators and likely voted with some of their conservative collaegues in the House because the bill wasn't conservative enough. It's not clear why Senators Graham and Hatch voted to table, but it may be either for the same reason or because they preferred an alternative course of action.
Forthcoming Action
Under a previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany S.627. The time between 1:30pm and 7:30pm will be equally divided and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees in alternating 30 minute blocks, with the Majority controlling the first half and the Minority controlling the second half.
The time between 7:30pm and 8:30pm will be equally divided and controlled between the Majority and Minority. The Republicans will control the first 15 minutes and the Democrats will control the last 15 minutes.
Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to commit the message to the Senate Budget Committee with instructions to report an amendment.
Expect the action in the Senate to be on amendments to the House message containing Democratic proposals on the debt ceiling. Senator Reid, Senator McConnell and others may take the time today to negotiate on something that could pass with bipartisan support.
The House has vowed to vote in the negative on a Reid debt ceiling proposal.
This page and our twitter feed (twitter.com/USSenateWatch)will be updated as developments occur.
Previous Posts On The Debt Ceiling Debate:
Republicans had their "Cut, Cap, Balance" bill. Democrats now need to vote on their own dream bill
The Gang of Six has the best shot at getting the House and Senate votes to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Here's why
Details about what's inside the Gang of Six proposal
From the Cayman Islands To Congress: Why The Senate Should Vote On Closing Tax Loopholes
S.1323: Senate rejects "shared sacrifice" by millionaires in deficit reduction - vote results and analysis
S.1323: Should taxing millionaires be on the table for deficit reduction? The Senate votes to proceed to the measure 69-27
S.1323: Why we got the first vote wrong, and what to expect in the upcoming budget debate
S.1323: Today, the Senate will draw the battle lines in the deficit debate with a vote that will fail. Find out why and how.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Senate Agenda: Tuesday, July 26 - Nominations and the Debt Ceiling
(1) The Senate will enter a period of morning business at 10 am.
(2) The Senate will then proceed to executive session to consider the nominations of Paul A. Engelmayer to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, and Ramona Villagomez Manglona of the Northern Mariana Islands to be Judge for the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
There will be two minutes for debate on these nominations, equally divided.
When time is used or yielded back, the Senate will vote on the nominations, with no intervening action or debate.
(3) At 2:15pm today, the Senate will resume consideration of S.1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit.
Special notes on this bill: This bill has been pending business for the U.S. Senate for some time now. There have been three votes on the bill. Republicans and Democrats first agreed to cloture (a timeline for ending bdebate) on the motion to proceed, then agreed to the motion to proceed, but failed to agree to cloture on the bill as a whole. This meant debate on the bill never really ended and the bill was not returned to the Calendar.
The reasons for the bill's initial demise are detailed in our previous posts on S.1323, which we've included below. The Senate's website now describes S.1323 as "the legislative vehicle for the debt limit increase."
This suggests that, because this sense of the Senate bill dealing with the budget deficit has already gone through the initial steps for floor consideration, the Senate might use the amendment process for this bill to bring any further legislation on the debt limit increase to the floor. Regardless of any eventual legislative maneuvers, the floor consideration of this bill will give Senators time to air their views on the debt ceiling debate.
Previous Posts On The Debt Ceiling Debate:
Republicans had their "Cut, Cap, Balance" bill. Democrats now need to vote on their own dream bill
The Gang of Six has the best shot at getting the House and Senate votes to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Here's why
Details about what's inside the Gang of Six proposal
From the Cayman Islands To Congress: Why The Senate Should Vote On Closing Tax Loopholes
S.1323: Senate rejects "shared sacrifice" by millionaires in deficit reduction - vote results and analysis
S.1323: Should taxing millionaires be on the table for deficit reduction? The Senate votes to proceed to the measure 69-27
S.1323: Why we got the first vote wrong, and what to expect in the upcoming budget debate
S.1323: Today, the Senate will draw the battle lines in the deficit debate with a vote that will fail. Find out why and how.
(2) The Senate will then proceed to executive session to consider the nominations of Paul A. Engelmayer to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, and Ramona Villagomez Manglona of the Northern Mariana Islands to be Judge for the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
There will be two minutes for debate on these nominations, equally divided.
When time is used or yielded back, the Senate will vote on the nominations, with no intervening action or debate.
(3) At 2:15pm today, the Senate will resume consideration of S.1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit.
Special notes on this bill: This bill has been pending business for the U.S. Senate for some time now. There have been three votes on the bill. Republicans and Democrats first agreed to cloture (a timeline for ending bdebate) on the motion to proceed, then agreed to the motion to proceed, but failed to agree to cloture on the bill as a whole. This meant debate on the bill never really ended and the bill was not returned to the Calendar.
The reasons for the bill's initial demise are detailed in our previous posts on S.1323, which we've included below. The Senate's website now describes S.1323 as "the legislative vehicle for the debt limit increase."
This suggests that, because this sense of the Senate bill dealing with the budget deficit has already gone through the initial steps for floor consideration, the Senate might use the amendment process for this bill to bring any further legislation on the debt limit increase to the floor. Regardless of any eventual legislative maneuvers, the floor consideration of this bill will give Senators time to air their views on the debt ceiling debate.
Previous Posts On The Debt Ceiling Debate:
Republicans had their "Cut, Cap, Balance" bill. Democrats now need to vote on their own dream bill
The Gang of Six has the best shot at getting the House and Senate votes to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Here's why
Details about what's inside the Gang of Six proposal
From the Cayman Islands To Congress: Why The Senate Should Vote On Closing Tax Loopholes
S.1323: Senate rejects "shared sacrifice" by millionaires in deficit reduction - vote results and analysis
S.1323: Should taxing millionaires be on the table for deficit reduction? The Senate votes to proceed to the measure 69-27
S.1323: Why we got the first vote wrong, and what to expect in the upcoming budget debate
S.1323: Today, the Senate will draw the battle lines in the deficit debate with a vote that will fail. Find out why and how.
Friday, July 22, 2011
House Democrats Need Their Own "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Moment
Even before the Republican leadership's "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill reached the House floor, it was very clear that the bill had no chance in the Senate and would face a veto from The White House.
However, the bill did allow the Republican faithful to debate and vote on their dream bill, and shows where exactly each member of Congress stands. And if a compromise debt ceiling/deficit reduction package arrives in the House and forces some Republican members to take a difficult vote, Republican members can always point to their efforts on the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill and say that the Democratic votes simply weren't there.
With Speaker Boehner's walkout from negotiations with The White House today, it has become clear that any collaborative effort in Congress - with or without the President - will require the support of wavering Democrats who feel that The White House has given too much while getting nothing in return. Like their Republican colleagues, Democrats have legitimate fears that they will alienate important constituencies and have to vote for something that seems far from ideal.
So House Democrats should design their ideal bill - like the House Republicans designed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" - and Speaker Boehner should allow it to reach the floor. The bill would be defeated, but perhaps it would allow House Democrats to ease their position and cover themselves for the difficult - but necessary - business of compromise.
Speaker Boehner has stated that President Obama's insistence on fair revenue raisers caused him to walk out. Boehner further stated that he would work with the leaders of the Senate to find something that can pass the House. We hope that when both parties get the chance to blow off steam, cooler heads will prevail.
Previous Posts
Analysis: Can The Gang of Six Get A Final Debt Ceiling Deal?
Details of the Gang of Six Plan
However, the bill did allow the Republican faithful to debate and vote on their dream bill, and shows where exactly each member of Congress stands. And if a compromise debt ceiling/deficit reduction package arrives in the House and forces some Republican members to take a difficult vote, Republican members can always point to their efforts on the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill and say that the Democratic votes simply weren't there.
With Speaker Boehner's walkout from negotiations with The White House today, it has become clear that any collaborative effort in Congress - with or without the President - will require the support of wavering Democrats who feel that The White House has given too much while getting nothing in return. Like their Republican colleagues, Democrats have legitimate fears that they will alienate important constituencies and have to vote for something that seems far from ideal.
So House Democrats should design their ideal bill - like the House Republicans designed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" - and Speaker Boehner should allow it to reach the floor. The bill would be defeated, but perhaps it would allow House Democrats to ease their position and cover themselves for the difficult - but necessary - business of compromise.
Speaker Boehner has stated that President Obama's insistence on fair revenue raisers caused him to walk out. Boehner further stated that he would work with the leaders of the Senate to find something that can pass the House. We hope that when both parties get the chance to blow off steam, cooler heads will prevail.
Previous Posts
Analysis: Can The Gang of Six Get A Final Debt Ceiling Deal?
Details of the Gang of Six Plan
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Senate Procedure: How Unanimous Consent Works
Following up on our post about "filling the amendment tree" in the U.S. Senate, we're now responding to a twitter request to explain the unanimous consent procedure in the Senate.
Difference between House and Senate Unanimous Consent
Unanimous consent exists in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it's tremendously important in the Senate and relatively minor in the House. In the House, the power of the Speaker and the majority is god-like. The House Rules Committee, which has 9 members of the majority party and 4 members of the minority, acts as a legislative traffic cop and decides everything that the Senate might decide by unanimous consent. Scheduling and reference to committees are in the grip of the Speaker and his or her associates. When something has broad agreement in the House, it tends to be decided by "suspending the rules and passing," which requires a two-thirds vote.
Function of Unanimous Consent in the Senate
In the Senate, there is really no way to set a clear legislative schedule without unanimous consent. Controversial bills are dictated by when they become pending business through a motion to proceed and whether the Senate invokes cloture, which is a timetable to end debate and bring a measure to a vote. But when there is broad agreement between the majority and the minority, the Senate rules that protect the rights of the minority become burdensome. By asking for unanimous consent, a Senator (typically the Majority Leader or his designee)can dispense with such arcane procedures as mandatory quorum calls in advance of cloture votes or the mandatory reading of the Senate journal. The Senate can, and often does, pass uncontroversial measures by unanimous consent.
However, because agreement requires unanimity, one Senator can object to an agreement on the floor. This is a safeguard for minority rights, but it's also the basis for the frustrating "secret holds." See our post on secret holds: Senate Procedure: Secret Holds
Identifying Unanimous Consent On The Senate Floor
How do you know when the Senate is operating under unanimous consent? The first way is to listen for unanimous consent requests on the floor that call for immediate action.
For example: Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S.Res.67 - that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, that no amendments be in order, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action and debate, and that all statements related to the matter be printed at the appropriate place in the Record as if read.
So, as you can see, one statement like this on the floor (if agreed to) would take a bill that raises no objection through the many steps of the Senate's legislative process in a highly expedited fashion. This allows the Senate to get quite a lot of things done.
"Under the previous order"
A more important way to tell when the Senate is operating under unanimous consent is if the presiding officer says anything beginning with "Under the previous order . . ." "The previous order" is usually an unanimous consent agreement setting a timetable for debate. So if the Majority Leader asked unanimous consent on the floor today that tomorrow at 2pm, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S.J.Res.20, the presiding officer would tell the Senate at the designated time, "Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S.J.Res.20."
You will see the presiding officer in the House make a similar statement when a matter is up for consideration, but the difference between the phrasing of the House statement and Senate statement sums up the basic difference between the two chambers. In the Senate, the presiding officer would say "Under the previous order . . ." In the House, the presiding officer would say "Pursuant to the rule . . ." The two phrases have largely the same effect, but the House statement indicates that House debate and amendments are limited pursuant to a rule agreed to by the aforementioned House Rules Committee.
If you want the best possible idea of the Senate's schedule, listen to the unanimous consent agreements. Also, you can check the Senate Calendar's section on unanimous consent agreements for the day online. But if you're too busy, don't worry - that's what our blog, twitter feed, and Facebook are for :)
Difference between House and Senate Unanimous Consent
Unanimous consent exists in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it's tremendously important in the Senate and relatively minor in the House. In the House, the power of the Speaker and the majority is god-like. The House Rules Committee, which has 9 members of the majority party and 4 members of the minority, acts as a legislative traffic cop and decides everything that the Senate might decide by unanimous consent. Scheduling and reference to committees are in the grip of the Speaker and his or her associates. When something has broad agreement in the House, it tends to be decided by "suspending the rules and passing," which requires a two-thirds vote.
Function of Unanimous Consent in the Senate
In the Senate, there is really no way to set a clear legislative schedule without unanimous consent. Controversial bills are dictated by when they become pending business through a motion to proceed and whether the Senate invokes cloture, which is a timetable to end debate and bring a measure to a vote. But when there is broad agreement between the majority and the minority, the Senate rules that protect the rights of the minority become burdensome. By asking for unanimous consent, a Senator (typically the Majority Leader or his designee)can dispense with such arcane procedures as mandatory quorum calls in advance of cloture votes or the mandatory reading of the Senate journal. The Senate can, and often does, pass uncontroversial measures by unanimous consent.
However, because agreement requires unanimity, one Senator can object to an agreement on the floor. This is a safeguard for minority rights, but it's also the basis for the frustrating "secret holds." See our post on secret holds: Senate Procedure: Secret Holds
Identifying Unanimous Consent On The Senate Floor
How do you know when the Senate is operating under unanimous consent? The first way is to listen for unanimous consent requests on the floor that call for immediate action.
For example: Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S.Res.67 - that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, that no amendments be in order, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action and debate, and that all statements related to the matter be printed at the appropriate place in the Record as if read.
So, as you can see, one statement like this on the floor (if agreed to) would take a bill that raises no objection through the many steps of the Senate's legislative process in a highly expedited fashion. This allows the Senate to get quite a lot of things done.
"Under the previous order"
A more important way to tell when the Senate is operating under unanimous consent is if the presiding officer says anything beginning with "Under the previous order . . ." "The previous order" is usually an unanimous consent agreement setting a timetable for debate. So if the Majority Leader asked unanimous consent on the floor today that tomorrow at 2pm, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S.J.Res.20, the presiding officer would tell the Senate at the designated time, "Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S.J.Res.20."
You will see the presiding officer in the House make a similar statement when a matter is up for consideration, but the difference between the phrasing of the House statement and Senate statement sums up the basic difference between the two chambers. In the Senate, the presiding officer would say "Under the previous order . . ." In the House, the presiding officer would say "Pursuant to the rule . . ." The two phrases have largely the same effect, but the House statement indicates that House debate and amendments are limited pursuant to a rule agreed to by the aforementioned House Rules Committee.
If you want the best possible idea of the Senate's schedule, listen to the unanimous consent agreements. Also, you can check the Senate Calendar's section on unanimous consent agreements for the day online. But if you're too busy, don't worry - that's what our blog, twitter feed, and Facebook are for :)
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Senate Procedure: How Filling The Tree Works
Occasionally, members of the minority party in the Senate will complain that the Senate Majority Leader is "filling the tree," thereby denying others the opportunity to offer amendments to pending legislation. But how does it even work?
The amendment process is one of the most complicated procedural elements of the Senate. Of course, the Senate can't consider endless changes upon changes to each part of the bill. It's like adding decorations to each branch of a Christmas tree. You can only hang so many things from each branch and sub-branch of the tree. So there are rules about how many amendments you can hang on the amendment tree based on what amendment is offered first, and what type of amendment it is. Since the Senate Majority Leader is accorded priority of recognition, he can offer the first amendment and "fill the tree" if he chooses. This gives him leverage in preventing amendments that are meant solely to delay Senate action, and it helps him negotiate a favorable unanimous consent agreement with the minority.
How specifically does it work? Well, Senate amendments can be offered in two degrees. A first degree amendment directly affects the bill itself. A second degree amendment to the original first degree amendment amends the original. Secondly, Senate amendments are either perfecting amendments or substitute amendments. Perfecting amendments are what you normally think of. Substitutes propose to substitute the text of the amendment for the entire bill or a section of the bill. Then there are amendments reported by a committee and amendments offered on the floor. Committee amendments and substitutes have priority on the floor. Finally, an amendment differs based on whether its function is to strike text, insert text, or strike and insert. There are different rules and precedents for all of these amendment scenarios.
But don't be confused! We'll just give you one real example to understand the simplest way to fill the tree.
Example: S.1323
When the Senate proceeded to consider S.1323, a bill expressing the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in deficit reduction, during the 112th Congress, the minority party filed several dilatory amendments. The Majority Leader was therefore recognized and called up amendments in this order:
(1) an amendment to insert
(a) a second degree amendment to strike and insert
(2) motion to commit with instructions
(a) committee instructed to report back an amendment
(b) amendment to instructions - strike and insert
(3) cloture motion
An amendment to insert text poses the simplest amendment scenario, and up to two amendments can be added to that first amendment, meaning three amendments can be pending at the same time. If the first degree amendment is an amendment to insert, one second degree amendment is in order. That's why Senator Reid included a second degree strike and insert amendment. But if the second degree amendment happened to be in the form of a substitute amendment, a second degree perfecting amendment would also be in order. Luckily, Senator Reid simply filled the tree with the two amendments. While this "tree" that branched out from the first amendment offered is pending, no other amendments can be debated and voted on.
He did the same thing for the motion to commit with instructions (don't worry about it). And finally, Senator Reid filed cloture - which requires a 60 vote threshold to agree to a timetable ending debate, which includes new limitations on amendments. In fact, Senate precedent holds that the Chair should take the initiative during the cloture timetable to rule non-germane amendments out of order. This isn't part of "filling the tree," but it helps the Majority Leader control the amendments.
If you thought that was confusing, that was the simplest amendment tree with up to three pending amendments. In the most complex tree, up to 11 amendments can be pending at the same time.
Email us at ask.unanimousconsent@gmail.com for more procedure questions or clarification, or leave us a comment.
Will Elizabeth Warren Win A Massachusetts Senate Race Against Scott Brown?
Update: Elizabeth Warren will declare her candidacy on Wednesday, September 14. Polls show her behind, but closing the gap with, Scott Brown.
With the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau instead of Elizabeth Warren, many Democrats are pushing for an Elizabeth Warren - Scott Brown match-up in the 2012 U.S. Senate race for Massachusetts. Scott Brown defeated Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley after Coakley made several gaffes and displayed a remarkable lack of people skills.
Here we'll tell you what factors to look out for in an Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown race.
Name Recognition
Scott Brown gained tremendous national recognition as a Republican from Massachusetts, replacing Ted Kennedy in the midst of the health care reform battle. He's alternately been a lightning rod for liberals as well as Tea Party activists who don't like some of Brown's more moderate tendencies. Elizabeth Warren came to the fore as one of the leading figures in regulating Wall Street excess and building the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was heavily opposed by many Republicans. Warren became a darling of the progressive left-wing and a detested figure for conservatives. Both Brown and Warren will get national attention and money, and Warren's instant recognition as someone with liberal credentials will help turn out voters in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Brown's own name recognition in Massachusetts will turn out the voters who got him elected the first time around.
Momentum and Organization
Both Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren will be able to raise heaps of money and inspire voters to turn out. But the fact that this Senate election will take place as President Obama seeks election will bring Massachusetts Democrats to the poll in greater numbers than a special election or a midterm election. Since Massachusetts is so predominantly Democratic, the burden will be on Scott Brown to find a strong organizing strategy to get his voters out to the polls.
Martha Coakley Syndrome
While Elizabeth Warren may be the strongest candidate for the Massachusetts Democratic Party, her campaign will want to study Martha Coakley's failed campaign against Scott Brown and guard against Coakley's mistakes. Martha Coakley came across as someone who detested the fundamentals of campaigning and meeting people. She appeared impersonable, and even insulted Massachusetts residents by making a Boston Red Sox gaffe. Scott Brown came across as an ordinary Massachusetts guy who genuinely liked people, and was able to draw a clear dividing line between himself and Coakley.
Warren faces similar dangers because her ties to Massachusetts are weak, and she comes across as an intellectual. Her connections are with Harvard, but she is from out of state and could be painted as a Washington insider. The rhetoric from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) suggests that it thinks this is the strongest line of attack, and for good reason.
Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren has the substance, name recognition, and clear liberal appeal that Martha Coakley simply didn't have. Her campaign will have a strong message. Therefore, she simply needs to stay out of the limelight, avoid gaffes, and turn up the heat on Scott Brown's voting record. Warren has a unique opportunity to put Scott Brown on the defensive in a state that, generally speaking, doesn't like Republicans.
Political Message
Scott Brown has a mixed voting record. As a Massachusetts Republican, he needs to be much more moderate than most of his counterparts in the GOP to have a shot at re-election. Nevertheless, the current political climate more often than not puts him in the same camp as his more conservative Senate colleagues and against the majority of his constituents. Brown's voting record will be a key talking point for any Democratic challenger, and Massachusetts may start to hear the word "flip-flop" once again.
Brown will try to turn this record to his advantage. He will portray himself as an independent, moderate Senator. He can campaign on the votes he shared with Democrats because the conservative Republicans in the state have no one else to vote for. He will try to take the center ground.
Brown has also provided pretty good constituent service, and that will help his campaign. He will come across as someone who gets things done for his constituents and empathizes with regular people in Massachusetts.
To recap, the campaign messages will probably be framed like this:
Elizabeth Warren campaign - Scott Brown is out of touch with Massachusetts voters, and votes with conservatives on the issues that matter most. Elect a reliable liberal and make Massachusetts blue again for the new Obama administration.
Scott Brown campaign - Scott Brown is an independent Senator who works hard for his constituents, while Elizabeth Warren is an out-of-state intellectual who cannot understand the interests of regular Massachusetts folk.
At this point, we're thinking Elizabeth Warren would win in a presidential election year for a Democrat, but we expect Scott Brown and the NRSC to put up a tough campaign.
Other recent posts:
Senate Takes First Step Under Debt Ceiling Deal
Will The American Jobs Act Pass? Floor Fight Analysis
With the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau instead of Elizabeth Warren, many Democrats are pushing for an Elizabeth Warren - Scott Brown match-up in the 2012 U.S. Senate race for Massachusetts. Scott Brown defeated Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley after Coakley made several gaffes and displayed a remarkable lack of people skills.
Here we'll tell you what factors to look out for in an Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown race.
Name Recognition
Scott Brown gained tremendous national recognition as a Republican from Massachusetts, replacing Ted Kennedy in the midst of the health care reform battle. He's alternately been a lightning rod for liberals as well as Tea Party activists who don't like some of Brown's more moderate tendencies. Elizabeth Warren came to the fore as one of the leading figures in regulating Wall Street excess and building the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was heavily opposed by many Republicans. Warren became a darling of the progressive left-wing and a detested figure for conservatives. Both Brown and Warren will get national attention and money, and Warren's instant recognition as someone with liberal credentials will help turn out voters in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Brown's own name recognition in Massachusetts will turn out the voters who got him elected the first time around.
Momentum and Organization
Both Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren will be able to raise heaps of money and inspire voters to turn out. But the fact that this Senate election will take place as President Obama seeks election will bring Massachusetts Democrats to the poll in greater numbers than a special election or a midterm election. Since Massachusetts is so predominantly Democratic, the burden will be on Scott Brown to find a strong organizing strategy to get his voters out to the polls.
Martha Coakley Syndrome
While Elizabeth Warren may be the strongest candidate for the Massachusetts Democratic Party, her campaign will want to study Martha Coakley's failed campaign against Scott Brown and guard against Coakley's mistakes. Martha Coakley came across as someone who detested the fundamentals of campaigning and meeting people. She appeared impersonable, and even insulted Massachusetts residents by making a Boston Red Sox gaffe. Scott Brown came across as an ordinary Massachusetts guy who genuinely liked people, and was able to draw a clear dividing line between himself and Coakley.
Warren faces similar dangers because her ties to Massachusetts are weak, and she comes across as an intellectual. Her connections are with Harvard, but she is from out of state and could be painted as a Washington insider. The rhetoric from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) suggests that it thinks this is the strongest line of attack, and for good reason.
Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren has the substance, name recognition, and clear liberal appeal that Martha Coakley simply didn't have. Her campaign will have a strong message. Therefore, she simply needs to stay out of the limelight, avoid gaffes, and turn up the heat on Scott Brown's voting record. Warren has a unique opportunity to put Scott Brown on the defensive in a state that, generally speaking, doesn't like Republicans.
Political Message
Scott Brown has a mixed voting record. As a Massachusetts Republican, he needs to be much more moderate than most of his counterparts in the GOP to have a shot at re-election. Nevertheless, the current political climate more often than not puts him in the same camp as his more conservative Senate colleagues and against the majority of his constituents. Brown's voting record will be a key talking point for any Democratic challenger, and Massachusetts may start to hear the word "flip-flop" once again.
Brown will try to turn this record to his advantage. He will portray himself as an independent, moderate Senator. He can campaign on the votes he shared with Democrats because the conservative Republicans in the state have no one else to vote for. He will try to take the center ground.
Brown has also provided pretty good constituent service, and that will help his campaign. He will come across as someone who gets things done for his constituents and empathizes with regular people in Massachusetts.
To recap, the campaign messages will probably be framed like this:
Elizabeth Warren campaign - Scott Brown is out of touch with Massachusetts voters, and votes with conservatives on the issues that matter most. Elect a reliable liberal and make Massachusetts blue again for the new Obama administration.
Scott Brown campaign - Scott Brown is an independent Senator who works hard for his constituents, while Elizabeth Warren is an out-of-state intellectual who cannot understand the interests of regular Massachusetts folk.
At this point, we're thinking Elizabeth Warren would win in a presidential election year for a Democrat, but we expect Scott Brown and the NRSC to put up a tough campaign.
Other recent posts:
Senate Takes First Step Under Debt Ceiling Deal
Will The American Jobs Act Pass? Floor Fight Analysis
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Can The Gang of Six Get A Final Debt Ceiling Deal?
The Senate's bipartisan "Gang of Six" shook up the Capitol Hill debate on the debt ceiling yesterday with a bold plan that gained momentum among key Senators. The plan would include $3.7 trillion in cuts over ten years, with some tax and entitlement reform. But will the elements of the plan pass both the House and Senate and provide a way out of the impasse in the debt ceiling negotiations with the congressional leadership and The White House?
The Plan
If you want the specific details of the plan, read here: Gang of Six Plan - Details
Will It Pass The Senate?
While it's still too early for us to do a tentative vote count, it seems likely that the Gang of Six plan could pass the Senate with bipartisan support. The number three Republican in the Senate, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, was supportive of the Gang of Six plan. Several more Republicans appear ready to vote with all (or most of) the Senate Democrats to put the bills over the 60-vote threshold for cloture. This would likely include Gang of Six members Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), Mike Crapo (Idaho), and Saxby Chambliss. Conservative Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has also expressed support.
Could It Pass in The House of Representatives?
The House of Representatives is larger, more partisan, and more majoritarian than the Senate. This is why getting any debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill through Congress depends very much on the temperament of the House of Representatives. Speaker John Boehner implored the House Republicans to remain united in favor of yesterday's "Cut, Cap, and Balance" legislation so that the Republicans would have a better hand at the negotiating table. This suggests that Speaker Boehner wants to use the unity and inflexibility of the House Republican caucus to force a better deal from the Democrats.
Unfortunately, this would be a recipe for disaster because a final deal would require some support from both sides.
Given the various interests of the Republican members, it would be possible to get the votes for a Gang of Six proposal. But the Senate would have to take the lead, build momentum for the deal, and put Senate Republicans on record in favor of a deal. If conservative Republicans in the Senate backed the Gang of Six proposal, some House Republicans might get enough political cover to push the proposals over the edge.
Stumbling Blocks
(1) All revenue raising legislation (taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. A large part of the Gang of Six plan consists of tax code legislation.
(2) The plan isn't the best thing in the world for Democrats. Democrats, especially the more ideological Democrats in the House of Representatives, aren't going to like much of what the plan does with taxes and entitlement reform. Fortunately, the Gang of Six left quite a bit of wiggle room, so these issues could be pushed to a future debate.
(3) There's no time. Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip and a Democratic member of the Gang of Six, asserts that there would be no time to fix the details of the legislation, have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and push it through the legislative process in time to raise the debt ceiling and pass the package.
So, What Would We Do?
Senator Durbin is probably right that time is limited. But if the final deal isn't based on the Gang of Six package, it will probably still require House and Senate staff to scramble each element through the legislative process.
We would recommend using the Gang of Six package as the basis for a debt ceiling deal. The legislation could come in separate parts so that the debt ceiling would be raised and most of the Gang of Six program could be voted on afterwards.
We would also recommend that the Gang of Six start filling in the details on the vague aspects of the deal and go on the offensive. The Gang of Six should secure public statements from as many Senate Republicans as possible supporting the Gang of Six proposals. The Gang of Six needs to generate and sustain momentum in the Senate before certain groups and ideologues, like Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform, incite the Republican base against the tax code provisions of the proposal. This could cause a situation where conservative Republicans would be unable to vote for this bipartisan proposal.
Finally, the best way to get opinions on the record before opposition groups attack the Gang of Six proposal is to vote. Since any actual legislation would probably need to originate in the House, the Gang of Six could try a "sense of the Senate" resolution expressing support for the proposal. Such a resolution would have no legislative character, but it would "express the sense of the Senate" on a question. This would be a good way to put Senate opinions on the record and force Speaker Boehner's hand in the House.
Links To All Of Our Previous Gang of Six Posts
July 19: Gang of Six Plan - Details
April 24: New Revelations About The Gang of Six and The Budget Battle
April 16: Gang of Six Seeking A Plan On Debt
Key Figures and Terms
Gang of Six
Saxby Chambliss (R - Georgia)
Tom Coburn (R - Oklahoma)
Mike Crapo (R - Idaho)
Mark Warner (D - Virginia)
Dick Durbin (D - Illinois) (Senate Majority Whip)
Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota) (Moderate Democrat, Chairman, Senate Budget Committee)
Leadership To Watch
Harry Reid (D - Nevada) (Senate Majority Leader)
Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) (Senate Minority Leader)
Lamar Alexander (R - Tennessee) (number three Republican)
John Boehner (R - Ohio) (Speaker of the House)
Eric Cantor (R - Virginia) (House Majority Leader)
Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader)
National debt
U.S. debt
tax loopholes
The Plan
If you want the specific details of the plan, read here: Gang of Six Plan - Details
Will It Pass The Senate?
While it's still too early for us to do a tentative vote count, it seems likely that the Gang of Six plan could pass the Senate with bipartisan support. The number three Republican in the Senate, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, was supportive of the Gang of Six plan. Several more Republicans appear ready to vote with all (or most of) the Senate Democrats to put the bills over the 60-vote threshold for cloture. This would likely include Gang of Six members Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), Mike Crapo (Idaho), and Saxby Chambliss. Conservative Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has also expressed support.
Could It Pass in The House of Representatives?
The House of Representatives is larger, more partisan, and more majoritarian than the Senate. This is why getting any debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill through Congress depends very much on the temperament of the House of Representatives. Speaker John Boehner implored the House Republicans to remain united in favor of yesterday's "Cut, Cap, and Balance" legislation so that the Republicans would have a better hand at the negotiating table. This suggests that Speaker Boehner wants to use the unity and inflexibility of the House Republican caucus to force a better deal from the Democrats.
Unfortunately, this would be a recipe for disaster because a final deal would require some support from both sides.
Given the various interests of the Republican members, it would be possible to get the votes for a Gang of Six proposal. But the Senate would have to take the lead, build momentum for the deal, and put Senate Republicans on record in favor of a deal. If conservative Republicans in the Senate backed the Gang of Six proposal, some House Republicans might get enough political cover to push the proposals over the edge.
Stumbling Blocks
(1) All revenue raising legislation (taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. A large part of the Gang of Six plan consists of tax code legislation.
(2) The plan isn't the best thing in the world for Democrats. Democrats, especially the more ideological Democrats in the House of Representatives, aren't going to like much of what the plan does with taxes and entitlement reform. Fortunately, the Gang of Six left quite a bit of wiggle room, so these issues could be pushed to a future debate.
(3) There's no time. Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip and a Democratic member of the Gang of Six, asserts that there would be no time to fix the details of the legislation, have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and push it through the legislative process in time to raise the debt ceiling and pass the package.
So, What Would We Do?
Senator Durbin is probably right that time is limited. But if the final deal isn't based on the Gang of Six package, it will probably still require House and Senate staff to scramble each element through the legislative process.
We would recommend using the Gang of Six package as the basis for a debt ceiling deal. The legislation could come in separate parts so that the debt ceiling would be raised and most of the Gang of Six program could be voted on afterwards.
We would also recommend that the Gang of Six start filling in the details on the vague aspects of the deal and go on the offensive. The Gang of Six should secure public statements from as many Senate Republicans as possible supporting the Gang of Six proposals. The Gang of Six needs to generate and sustain momentum in the Senate before certain groups and ideologues, like Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform, incite the Republican base against the tax code provisions of the proposal. This could cause a situation where conservative Republicans would be unable to vote for this bipartisan proposal.
Finally, the best way to get opinions on the record before opposition groups attack the Gang of Six proposal is to vote. Since any actual legislation would probably need to originate in the House, the Gang of Six could try a "sense of the Senate" resolution expressing support for the proposal. Such a resolution would have no legislative character, but it would "express the sense of the Senate" on a question. This would be a good way to put Senate opinions on the record and force Speaker Boehner's hand in the House.
Links To All Of Our Previous Gang of Six Posts
July 19: Gang of Six Plan - Details
April 24: New Revelations About The Gang of Six and The Budget Battle
April 16: Gang of Six Seeking A Plan On Debt
Key Figures and Terms
Gang of Six
Saxby Chambliss (R - Georgia)
Tom Coburn (R - Oklahoma)
Mike Crapo (R - Idaho)
Mark Warner (D - Virginia)
Dick Durbin (D - Illinois) (Senate Majority Whip)
Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota) (Moderate Democrat, Chairman, Senate Budget Committee)
Leadership To Watch
Harry Reid (D - Nevada) (Senate Majority Leader)
Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) (Senate Minority Leader)
Lamar Alexander (R - Tennessee) (number three Republican)
John Boehner (R - Ohio) (Speaker of the House)
Eric Cantor (R - Virginia) (House Majority Leader)
Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader)
National debt
U.S. debt
tax loopholes
Bipartisan Senate 'Gang of Six' Reveals Deficit Reduction Plan - Details
The Senate's Gang of Six, consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans, revealed its national debt plan today. The plan seeks to cut spending by $3.7 trillion over the next decade and cause a net decrease in taxes of $1.5 trillion. For the details of the national debt plan, see below. For our analysis, see: Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Gang of Six Membership
Saxby Chambliss (R - Georgia)
Tom Coburn (R - Oklahoma)
Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota)
Mike Crapo (R - Idaho)
Dick Durbin (D - Illinois)
Mark Warner (D - Virginia)
Bill 1
- $500 billion worth of cuts
- a new consumer price index (CPI) to calculate cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security
- impose statutory spending caps through 2015
- freeze congressional pay
- sell unused federal proprty
Bill 2
Create fast track process for a comprehensive to restructure tax and spending programs
Separate track for considering Social Security on floor
Committees must report bills within the next 6 months with deficit savings in entitlement programs over the next ten years
Taxes
- The Finance Committee would deliver real deficit savings by simplifying the tax code and raise as much as $1 trillion.
- Establish three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22, 23-29.
- Permanently repeal $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax.
- Establish a single corporate tax rate between 23 and 29 percent.
- Move to a competitive territorial tax system.
Gang of Six Membership
Saxby Chambliss (R - Georgia)
Tom Coburn (R - Oklahoma)
Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota)
Mike Crapo (R - Idaho)
Dick Durbin (D - Illinois)
Mark Warner (D - Virginia)
Bill 1
- $500 billion worth of cuts
- a new consumer price index (CPI) to calculate cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security
- impose statutory spending caps through 2015
- freeze congressional pay
- sell unused federal proprty
Bill 2
Create fast track process for a comprehensive to restructure tax and spending programs
Separate track for considering Social Security on floor
Committees must report bills within the next 6 months with deficit savings in entitlement programs over the next ten years
Taxes
- The Finance Committee would deliver real deficit savings by simplifying the tax code and raise as much as $1 trillion.
- Establish three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22, 23-29.
- Permanently repeal $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax.
- Establish a single corporate tax rate between 23 and 29 percent.
- Move to a competitive territorial tax system.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
July 14th Senate Schedule: H.R. 2055: Appropriations Bill for Military Construction/Dept. of Veterans' Affairs
Thursday, July 14
Today, the Senate will consider H.R.2055, an act making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and related agencies. Specifically, the Senate will continue debating the motion to proceed to the bill after morning business today.
The bill lies outside the partisan debt ceiling debate. It passed overwhelmingly in the House. Yesterday's vote was on cloture (setting a timetable to end debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill.
Cloture was invoked 89-11
11 Senators voted against the cloture motion:
Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), David Vitter (R-LA)
All of the Senators who voted against cloture are highly conservative. Several, particularly Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and several Tea Party senators, have insisted on blocking anything that does not have to do with the federal budget.
Chances of Passage: Very High - 411 votes in the House, strong bipartisan support so far in the Senate
Today, the Senate will consider H.R.2055, an act making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and related agencies. Specifically, the Senate will continue debating the motion to proceed to the bill after morning business today.
The bill lies outside the partisan debt ceiling debate. It passed overwhelmingly in the House. Yesterday's vote was on cloture (setting a timetable to end debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill.
Cloture was invoked 89-11
11 Senators voted against the cloture motion:
Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), David Vitter (R-LA)
All of the Senators who voted against cloture are highly conservative. Several, particularly Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and several Tea Party senators, have insisted on blocking anything that does not have to do with the federal budget.
Chances of Passage: Very High - 411 votes in the House, strong bipartisan support so far in the Senate
Why It's Time To Force A Vote On Tax Loopholes: From the Cayman Islands to Congress
Somewhere in the Cayman Islands, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island likes to point out, is a small 5-story building with over 18,000 businesses listed as tenants.
Reforming the tax code to close tax loopholes like the one Senator Whitehouse pointed out has bipartisan support. Former Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire joined Democratic Senator Ron Wyden to sponsor a bill simplifying the tax code. Current Republican Senator Dan Coats of Indiana has taken Gregg's place as the primary Republican supporter of the same bill. The bipartisan Erskine-Bowles commission on deficit reduction advocated similar principles, and the same ideas were on the table for the Gang of Six.
So, why hasn't closing tax loopholes made any headway at the debt ceiling negotiating table? First, many Republicans are unwilling to back away from the extreme anti-tax position of Grover Norquist's "Americans For Tax Reform," even on a center ground issue like simplifying the tax code. Secondly, Speaker John Boehner's Republican caucus appears unwilling to pass anything that smacks of compromise. House Republicans have turned their backs on a very good deal (Republicans would get trillions of dollars in spending cuts from a Democratic administration, and President Obama has even put some cuts to sacred Democratic programs on the table).
What We Should Do Next: Bring Tax Loopholes To A Vote If Negotiations Continue To Falter
The battle over the best proposals in the debt ceiling debate, in the eyes of 2012 voters, will be won in the center ground. Tax code legislation is squarely in the center ground between raising taxes and cutting spending like an ax-wielding madman. And if opposition leaders at the debt ceiling negotiations say their caucuses won't support centrist proposals, members of the House and Senate should have to make themselves publicly accountable by voting yea or nay on tax reform and defending their vote to their constituents.
The Senate should either vote on some legislative package based on the Coats/Wyden "Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act," or it should vote on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that says closing tax loopholes should be part of a final debt ceiling deal.
President Obama and the congressional negotiators should try to reach a deal in the next week. But if opposition leaders continue to insist on rejecting reasonable proposals, President Obama should take the rejected proposals and introduce them to the full Congress for a series of votes. If the United States defaults on its obligations, the American people deserve to know exactly what their Senators and Representatives rejected to get us to that state.
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Reforming the tax code to close tax loopholes like the one Senator Whitehouse pointed out has bipartisan support. Former Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire joined Democratic Senator Ron Wyden to sponsor a bill simplifying the tax code. Current Republican Senator Dan Coats of Indiana has taken Gregg's place as the primary Republican supporter of the same bill. The bipartisan Erskine-Bowles commission on deficit reduction advocated similar principles, and the same ideas were on the table for the Gang of Six.
So, why hasn't closing tax loopholes made any headway at the debt ceiling negotiating table? First, many Republicans are unwilling to back away from the extreme anti-tax position of Grover Norquist's "Americans For Tax Reform," even on a center ground issue like simplifying the tax code. Secondly, Speaker John Boehner's Republican caucus appears unwilling to pass anything that smacks of compromise. House Republicans have turned their backs on a very good deal (Republicans would get trillions of dollars in spending cuts from a Democratic administration, and President Obama has even put some cuts to sacred Democratic programs on the table).
What We Should Do Next: Bring Tax Loopholes To A Vote If Negotiations Continue To Falter
The battle over the best proposals in the debt ceiling debate, in the eyes of 2012 voters, will be won in the center ground. Tax code legislation is squarely in the center ground between raising taxes and cutting spending like an ax-wielding madman. And if opposition leaders at the debt ceiling negotiations say their caucuses won't support centrist proposals, members of the House and Senate should have to make themselves publicly accountable by voting yea or nay on tax reform and defending their vote to their constituents.
The Senate should either vote on some legislative package based on the Coats/Wyden "Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act," or it should vote on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that says closing tax loopholes should be part of a final debt ceiling deal.
President Obama and the congressional negotiators should try to reach a deal in the next week. But if opposition leaders continue to insist on rejecting reasonable proposals, President Obama should take the rejected proposals and introduce them to the full Congress for a series of votes. If the United States defaults on its obligations, the American people deserve to know exactly what their Senators and Representatives rejected to get us to that state.
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Senate Rejects "Shared Sacrifice" By Millionaires On Party Line Vote: Vote Results and Final Analysis on S.1323
In the third vote on the bill this week, the Senate rejected a motion to invoke cloture on S.1323 - a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. This effectively killed the bill by failing to end its consideration on the floor and bring it to a final vote.
The bill expresses the opinion that people making $1,000,000 or more should share the sacrifice of deficit reduction. This is basically the Democratic position that wealthy Americans can and should pay more taxes, so naturally the final vote was a party line vote. Blue Dog Democrats Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) voted with all of the Republicans to prevent the bill from coming to a final vote and reject the position stated in the bill.
Vote Results
YEAs ---51
Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chris Coons (D-DE), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---49
Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R-MA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), Roger Wicker (R-MS)
What This Means
This bill had no legislative provisions. Rather, it was meant to draw an important battle line in the war over the debt ceiling and the federal budget. Don't be surprised to hear Democrats cite the fact that every Republican rejected the idea of people making $1,000,000 or more paying higher taxes to help the economy out.
Our Previous Coverage - The Floor History of S.1323
Senate Proceeds To S.1323; Reid Fills Amendment Tree:
http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/07/senate-proceeds-to-s1323-amendment-tree.html
Here, we explain why so many Republicans voted for the bill the first time around on a clear party-line issue:
http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/07/senate-continues-to-debate-its-million.html
Senate Democrats Draw Battle Lines in Debt Ceiling Debate: Initial Predictions
http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/07/s1323-floor-fight-watch-on-shared.html
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
The bill expresses the opinion that people making $1,000,000 or more should share the sacrifice of deficit reduction. This is basically the Democratic position that wealthy Americans can and should pay more taxes, so naturally the final vote was a party line vote. Blue Dog Democrats Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) voted with all of the Republicans to prevent the bill from coming to a final vote and reject the position stated in the bill.
Vote Results
YEAs ---51
Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chris Coons (D-DE), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---49
Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R-MA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), Roger Wicker (R-MS)
What This Means
This bill had no legislative provisions. Rather, it was meant to draw an important battle line in the war over the debt ceiling and the federal budget. Don't be surprised to hear Democrats cite the fact that every Republican rejected the idea of people making $1,000,000 or more paying higher taxes to help the economy out.
Our Previous Coverage - The Floor History of S.1323
Senate Proceeds To S.1323; Reid Fills Amendment Tree:
http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/07/senate-proceeds-to-s1323-amendment-tree.html
Here, we explain why so many Republicans voted for the bill the first time around on a clear party-line issue:
http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/07/senate-continues-to-debate-its-million.html
Senate Democrats Draw Battle Lines in Debt Ceiling Debate: Initial Predictions
http://unanimousconsent.blogspot.com/2011/07/s1323-floor-fight-watch-on-shared.html
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Monday, July 11, 2011
Senate Proceeds To S.1323, Amendment Tree Filled and Cloture Filed
The Senate has just agreed to proceed to the consideration of S.1323, a bill expressing the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in deficit reduction, by a vote of 69-27. The bill is now open for debate. Below find the bill's purpose, procedural considerations, and vote results.
Bill Purpose
Expresses the sense of the Senate, saying that people making $1,000,000 or more per year should share the sacrifice of deficit reduction with lower and middle class people. A yea vote basically means that you think increased tax revenue from millionaires should be on the table in addition to everything else that's been discussed.
Reid "Fills The Tree," Preventing Dilatory Amendments
Because of the risk of large numbers of dilatory amendments offered by the opposition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "filled the tree" by calling up a sufficient number of amendments to restrict the ability of other Senators to offer their amendments. In addition, Senator Reid filed a cloture motion which would impose a timeline for ending the debate if agreed to. The vote should come later this week.
Here are the vote results:
69 yeas, 27 nays, 4 not voting
All Democrats voted in the affirmative except Senator Sherrod Brown (OH), who was necessarily absent, and Senator Ben Nelson (NE) - a Blue Dog Democrat.
Republicans voting yea (18):
Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA), Richard Burr (NC), Dan Coats (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), John Cornyn (TX), Lindsey Graham (SC), John Hoeven (ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Jon Kyl (AZ), John McCain (AZ), Mitch McConnell (KY), Jeff Sessions (AL), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Thune (SD)
As we explained in an earlier post, several conservative Republicans are voting for the procedural steps to move the bill along in spite of their opposition to the bill because of their desire to have a budget debate. However, as we predicted, Republican votes are decreasing. See our previous coverage: http://ow.ly/5BAJe
The following Republicans switched their intial yea vote from last week to a nay:
Thad Cochran (MS), Chuck Grassley (IA), Richard Lugar (IN), Jerry Moran (KS), Pat Roberts (KS), Richard Shelby (AL)
The following Republicans were necessarily absent:
Lisa Murkowski (AK), David Vitter (LA), Marco Rubio (FL)
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Bill Purpose
Expresses the sense of the Senate, saying that people making $1,000,000 or more per year should share the sacrifice of deficit reduction with lower and middle class people. A yea vote basically means that you think increased tax revenue from millionaires should be on the table in addition to everything else that's been discussed.
Reid "Fills The Tree," Preventing Dilatory Amendments
Because of the risk of large numbers of dilatory amendments offered by the opposition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "filled the tree" by calling up a sufficient number of amendments to restrict the ability of other Senators to offer their amendments. In addition, Senator Reid filed a cloture motion which would impose a timeline for ending the debate if agreed to. The vote should come later this week.
Here are the vote results:
69 yeas, 27 nays, 4 not voting
All Democrats voted in the affirmative except Senator Sherrod Brown (OH), who was necessarily absent, and Senator Ben Nelson (NE) - a Blue Dog Democrat.
Republicans voting yea (18):
Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA), Richard Burr (NC), Dan Coats (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), John Cornyn (TX), Lindsey Graham (SC), John Hoeven (ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Jon Kyl (AZ), John McCain (AZ), Mitch McConnell (KY), Jeff Sessions (AL), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Thune (SD)
As we explained in an earlier post, several conservative Republicans are voting for the procedural steps to move the bill along in spite of their opposition to the bill because of their desire to have a budget debate. However, as we predicted, Republican votes are decreasing. See our previous coverage: http://ow.ly/5BAJe
The following Republicans switched their intial yea vote from last week to a nay:
Thad Cochran (MS), Chuck Grassley (IA), Richard Lugar (IN), Jerry Moran (KS), Pat Roberts (KS), Richard Shelby (AL)
The following Republicans were necessarily absent:
Lisa Murkowski (AK), David Vitter (LA), Marco Rubio (FL)
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Senate Continues To Debate Its Million Dollar Question: S.1323
The Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.1323, a sense of the Senate bill that states that people making $1 million or more per year should share the sacrifice of deficit reduction.
In our previous description (http://ow.ly/5yBX8) of the bill's chances and political context, we said that it would most likely fail on a party line vote, thereby allowing the Democrats to say that Republicans defend the interests of millionaires in the deficit debate. In this post, we'll tell you why our assessment of the previous vote was wrong, what to expect on any forthcoming votes, and show you the results from the first vote (on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to this bill).
Why We Got The First Vote Wrong
We predicted that the bill would fail on the first vote because the debate on whether taxing millionaires should be on the table has consistently put Democrats and Republicans against each other. Since the previous vote was a cloture motion on the motion to proceed - which requires 60 votes to pass and ends debate on the matter on which it was invoked - at least 7 Republicans would have had to join all 53 Democrats for the bill to succeed. Since this would most likely have had to include every moderate Republican and some conservatives, we thought this was impossible.
In fact, the initial vote was 74-22 in favor, with 4 not voting. This showed substantial Republican support. What we didn't account for was that Republicans would vote for the initial cloture motion to have a debate on the issue. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, clearly stated his intention to vote in the affirmative for this reason.
What This Means For Future Votes
In order to go to a bill on the legislative calendar, you either need unanimous consent or a successful motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill. The motion to proceed is debatable. The successful cloture motion last week started a timetable to end debate on that motion to proceed. The motion to proceed will come to a vote at 5:30pm today. If that succeeds, there will be a debate. Republicans can, and probably will, offer amendments. There will then be another 60-vote cloture motion, this time to terminate the actual consideration of the measure. If that succeeds, there will be a final vote on passage.
The number of Republicans supporting the bill should grow fewer in number with each vote. The real action on the bill will come on any amendments Republicans offer and whether Republicans vote down the final cloture vote or allow the bill to move to a final vote.
Initial Vote Results
Vote Results, Cloture Motion On The Motion To Proceed To S.1323
The final vote was 74 yeas, 24 nays, 4 not voting
First, a list of people voting for:
All Democrats except Ben Nelson, who voted no. Three Democrats (Jon Tester, Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin) were necessarily absent. The following Republicans voted for cloture: Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA), Dan Coats (IN), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), John Cornyn (TX), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Hoeven (ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Jon Kyl (AZ), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Mitch McConnell (KY), Jerry Moran (KS), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Pat Roberts (KS), Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Shelby (AL), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Thune (SD), David Vitter (LA).
The rest of the Republicans, minus Richard Burr (NC, necessarily absent) voted against cloture along with Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
In our previous description (http://ow.ly/5yBX8) of the bill's chances and political context, we said that it would most likely fail on a party line vote, thereby allowing the Democrats to say that Republicans defend the interests of millionaires in the deficit debate. In this post, we'll tell you why our assessment of the previous vote was wrong, what to expect on any forthcoming votes, and show you the results from the first vote (on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to this bill).
Why We Got The First Vote Wrong
We predicted that the bill would fail on the first vote because the debate on whether taxing millionaires should be on the table has consistently put Democrats and Republicans against each other. Since the previous vote was a cloture motion on the motion to proceed - which requires 60 votes to pass and ends debate on the matter on which it was invoked - at least 7 Republicans would have had to join all 53 Democrats for the bill to succeed. Since this would most likely have had to include every moderate Republican and some conservatives, we thought this was impossible.
In fact, the initial vote was 74-22 in favor, with 4 not voting. This showed substantial Republican support. What we didn't account for was that Republicans would vote for the initial cloture motion to have a debate on the issue. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, clearly stated his intention to vote in the affirmative for this reason.
What This Means For Future Votes
In order to go to a bill on the legislative calendar, you either need unanimous consent or a successful motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill. The motion to proceed is debatable. The successful cloture motion last week started a timetable to end debate on that motion to proceed. The motion to proceed will come to a vote at 5:30pm today. If that succeeds, there will be a debate. Republicans can, and probably will, offer amendments. There will then be another 60-vote cloture motion, this time to terminate the actual consideration of the measure. If that succeeds, there will be a final vote on passage.
The number of Republicans supporting the bill should grow fewer in number with each vote. The real action on the bill will come on any amendments Republicans offer and whether Republicans vote down the final cloture vote or allow the bill to move to a final vote.
Initial Vote Results
Vote Results, Cloture Motion On The Motion To Proceed To S.1323
The final vote was 74 yeas, 24 nays, 4 not voting
First, a list of people voting for:
All Democrats except Ben Nelson, who voted no. Three Democrats (Jon Tester, Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin) were necessarily absent. The following Republicans voted for cloture: Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA), Dan Coats (IN), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), John Cornyn (TX), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Hoeven (ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Jon Kyl (AZ), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Mitch McConnell (KY), Jerry Moran (KS), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Pat Roberts (KS), Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Shelby (AL), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Thune (SD), David Vitter (LA).
The rest of the Republicans, minus Richard Burr (NC, necessarily absent) voted against cloture along with Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Senate Floor Schedule, July 11
Pending business
Motion to proceed to the consideration of S.1323, a bill expressing the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. " It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort."
2pm: The Senate will convene and resume consideration of the motion to proceed.
The time until 5:30pm will be equally divided between the leaders and their designees.
5:30pm: Vote on the motion to proceed to S.1323.
Motion to proceed to the consideration of S.1323, a bill expressing the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. " It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort."
2pm: The Senate will convene and resume consideration of the motion to proceed.
The time until 5:30pm will be equally divided between the leaders and their designees.
5:30pm: Vote on the motion to proceed to S.1323.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
S.1323: Senate Democrats Draw Battle Lines In Debt Ceiling Debate
The Senate will consider S.1323, "To express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit" until 10 am, at which point the Senate will vote on whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. Below, we'll tell you what the bill says, why we think it won't pass, and why it's important.
What Does It Say?
The most important line is: "It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort." This basically means that those who vote for it think taxes on people earning a million dollars or more per year should be on the table to help reduce the deficit.
Will It Pass?
At this point, we're pretty sure it won't pass. This is a bill designed to draw the battle lines in the budget debate. Republicans are not likely to vote for any position that might commit them to increase taxes, especially on the wealthy. At the minimum, this bill needs at least 7 Republicans and all 53 Democrats to vote in the affirmative to even proceed to consideration.
In the long run, this is a political no-win for Republicans. If the Republicans unite and defeat this bill, Democrats will be able to portray Republicans as in the pocket of millionaires when it comes to economy and deficit reduction. If some Republicans do vote with Democrats for the bill, the Democrats can hold those Republicans to their positions on a future vote or budget negotiation.
Procedure
When the Senate votes this morning, they will not be voting - or even considering - the actual bill. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a motion to proceed to its consideration, which is a debatable motion. Therefore, opponents could conceivably filibuster the motion to proceed to the bill itself before the actual consideration of the bill started. To end debate on the motion to proceed, Senator Reid filed a cloture motion, which sets a timetable to end debate if agreed to. But, since the bill may not move any further, today's vote on the cloture motion is basically a vote on the measure itself.
Further, the designation "S.1323" makes it clear that this is a bill. In the Senate, bills and joint resolutions are procedurally distinct from simple and concurrent resolutions (a simple resolution might be designated S.Res.1323). Since S.1323 only expresses the "sense of the Senate" and isn't legislative in character, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to take the form of a simple or concurrent resolution. However, it is easier to move a bill or joint resolution under opposition than a resolution for reasons we won't discuss here (unless you ask us in the comments section or via email at ask.unanimousconsent@gmail.com). That is surely the reason Senator Reid put the sense of the Senate statement in the form of a bill.
We will post vote results when they become available. Find the floor schedule for this bill here: http://ow.ly/5yAoN
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
What Does It Say?
The most important line is: "It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort." This basically means that those who vote for it think taxes on people earning a million dollars or more per year should be on the table to help reduce the deficit.
Will It Pass?
At this point, we're pretty sure it won't pass. This is a bill designed to draw the battle lines in the budget debate. Republicans are not likely to vote for any position that might commit them to increase taxes, especially on the wealthy. At the minimum, this bill needs at least 7 Republicans and all 53 Democrats to vote in the affirmative to even proceed to consideration.
In the long run, this is a political no-win for Republicans. If the Republicans unite and defeat this bill, Democrats will be able to portray Republicans as in the pocket of millionaires when it comes to economy and deficit reduction. If some Republicans do vote with Democrats for the bill, the Democrats can hold those Republicans to their positions on a future vote or budget negotiation.
Procedure
When the Senate votes this morning, they will not be voting - or even considering - the actual bill. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a motion to proceed to its consideration, which is a debatable motion. Therefore, opponents could conceivably filibuster the motion to proceed to the bill itself before the actual consideration of the bill started. To end debate on the motion to proceed, Senator Reid filed a cloture motion, which sets a timetable to end debate if agreed to. But, since the bill may not move any further, today's vote on the cloture motion is basically a vote on the measure itself.
Further, the designation "S.1323" makes it clear that this is a bill. In the Senate, bills and joint resolutions are procedurally distinct from simple and concurrent resolutions (a simple resolution might be designated S.Res.1323). Since S.1323 only expresses the "sense of the Senate" and isn't legislative in character, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to take the form of a simple or concurrent resolution. However, it is easier to move a bill or joint resolution under opposition than a resolution for reasons we won't discuss here (unless you ask us in the comments section or via email at ask.unanimousconsent@gmail.com). That is surely the reason Senator Reid put the sense of the Senate statement in the form of a bill.
We will post vote results when they become available. Find the floor schedule for this bill here: http://ow.ly/5yAoN
Other National Debt Posts:
Why The Gang of Six Proposal Has The Best Chance of Passing the House and Senate
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
S.J.Res.20: Minority Statement on Libya
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently reported S.J.Res.20, A joint resolution authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. Below is an excerpt of ranking member Richard Lugar's statement codifying the basis of Senate opposition to the Libya resolution.
I oppose the joint resolution reported by the committee.
The United States is still engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. In light of these circumstances, and the lack of vital U.S. interests in Libya, I do not believe that we should be intervening in a civil war there.
As reported by the committee, S.J. Res. 20 would provide expansive authorities permitting the continuation and significant escalation of U.S. military involvement in Libya's civil war.
The joint resolution would authorize the President to re-escalate U.S. military involvement in Libya to, and potentially beyond, the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation, when the United States carried out intensive air strikes on a daily basis. The joint resolution would only limit the President to actions `in support of United States national security policy interests' and `to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.'
Though President Obama indicated when he initiated this intervention that it would be limited in duration, our operations there have now lasted more than 100 days, and this joint resolution would authorize them to continue for as long as an additional year. The costs of these operations will exceed $1 billion by September, and could rise significantly beyond this over the period provided for in the joint resolution.
You can find the full statement here: http://ow.ly/5wKAF
I oppose the joint resolution reported by the committee.
The United States is still engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. In light of these circumstances, and the lack of vital U.S. interests in Libya, I do not believe that we should be intervening in a civil war there.
As reported by the committee, S.J. Res. 20 would provide expansive authorities permitting the continuation and significant escalation of U.S. military involvement in Libya's civil war.
The joint resolution would authorize the President to re-escalate U.S. military involvement in Libya to, and potentially beyond, the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation, when the United States carried out intensive air strikes on a daily basis. The joint resolution would only limit the President to actions `in support of United States national security policy interests' and `to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.'
Though President Obama indicated when he initiated this intervention that it would be limited in duration, our operations there have now lasted more than 100 days, and this joint resolution would authorize them to continue for as long as an additional year. The costs of these operations will exceed $1 billion by September, and could rise significantly beyond this over the period provided for in the joint resolution.
You can find the full statement here: http://ow.ly/5wKAF
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Senate Floor Schedule, Week of July 4 through July 8
Thursday, July 7
9:30 am: The Senate convenes.
(a) prayer
(b) pledge
(c) leader remarks
S.1323, Sense of the Senate resolution
The Senate resumes consideration of the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S.1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. Senators will be permitted to speak up to ten minutes each until 10 am, with the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees.
10:00 am: Vote on the cloture motion. Requires 60 votes. We expect it to fail on a party line vote. See our reasons why, and our description of why this is important in the deficit reduction debate, here: http://ow.ly/5yBJw
Therefore, further business will be clarified after morning proceedings.
Wednesday, July 6
The Senate will convene at 10 am and consider S.1323, expressing the Sense of the Senate on the need for shared sacrifice concerning the budget deficit.
Tuesday, July 5
3:39pm update: The consideration of cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J.Res.20, the Libya resolution, was scheduled and detailed below. However, because of developments on the Hill and talks between the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader (Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell), there are no longer any Libya votes scheduled.
Instead, budget matters are now the pending business of the Senate. Senator Reid has a "Sense of the Senate" resolution ready on "shared sacrifice." At 5pm, there will be a vote today on asking the sergeant-at-arms to request the attendance of Senators.
We will update you with further developments and corrections.
S.J.Res. 20: A joint resolution authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya
(1) The Senate will convene at 2pm on Tuesday.
(2) Following any leader remarks (time reserved for the majority and minority leader to speak on any subject), the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res 20, the Kerry-McCain Resolution on Libya.
(3) At 5 pm, the Senate will vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This is necessary because Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin objected to unanimous consent to proceed to the immediate consideration of the joint resolution, which would have expedited the process.
Libya Timeline and Procedure Explanation
(1) In order to consider S.J. Res 20, a Senator must make a motion to proceed to the consideration of the Libya joint resolution. The motion itself is debatable.
(2) Because of the likely inability to gain unanimous consent to expedite the process (Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has said he will object to Senate business that he doesn't consider of paramount importance), the Senate needs to invoke cloture on the motion. This means that 60 Senators can start a specific timetable that brings the debate to a close, which is detailed below:
(a) Each Senator is entitled to a total of one hour on the pending matter.
(b) The Senate will consider the matter for no more than 30 hours and vote on final disposition of the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res 20.
(c) This does not mean the Senate has passed or ended debate on the measure itself. It means that the Senate has ended debate on whether to make the Libya resolution the pending business for consideration.
(d) Given the possibility that the Senate will not be able to deal with the Libya resolution by unanimous consent, it is reasonable to expect another cloture motion. That motion, should it be made, would end the debate on Libya that tomorrow's vote would start.
We will have more updates on the schedule as events transpire.
9:30 am: The Senate convenes.
(a) prayer
(b) pledge
(c) leader remarks
S.1323, Sense of the Senate resolution
The Senate resumes consideration of the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S.1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. Senators will be permitted to speak up to ten minutes each until 10 am, with the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees.
10:00 am: Vote on the cloture motion. Requires 60 votes. We expect it to fail on a party line vote. See our reasons why, and our description of why this is important in the deficit reduction debate, here: http://ow.ly/5yBJw
Therefore, further business will be clarified after morning proceedings.
Wednesday, July 6
The Senate will convene at 10 am and consider S.1323, expressing the Sense of the Senate on the need for shared sacrifice concerning the budget deficit.
Tuesday, July 5
3:39pm update: The consideration of cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J.Res.20, the Libya resolution, was scheduled and detailed below. However, because of developments on the Hill and talks between the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader (Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell), there are no longer any Libya votes scheduled.
Instead, budget matters are now the pending business of the Senate. Senator Reid has a "Sense of the Senate" resolution ready on "shared sacrifice." At 5pm, there will be a vote today on asking the sergeant-at-arms to request the attendance of Senators.
We will update you with further developments and corrections.
S.J.Res. 20: A joint resolution authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya
(1) The Senate will convene at 2pm on Tuesday.
(2) Following any leader remarks (time reserved for the majority and minority leader to speak on any subject), the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res 20, the Kerry-McCain Resolution on Libya.
(3) At 5 pm, the Senate will vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This is necessary because Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin objected to unanimous consent to proceed to the immediate consideration of the joint resolution, which would have expedited the process.
Libya Timeline and Procedure Explanation
(1) In order to consider S.J. Res 20, a Senator must make a motion to proceed to the consideration of the Libya joint resolution. The motion itself is debatable.
(2) Because of the likely inability to gain unanimous consent to expedite the process (Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has said he will object to Senate business that he doesn't consider of paramount importance), the Senate needs to invoke cloture on the motion. This means that 60 Senators can start a specific timetable that brings the debate to a close, which is detailed below:
(a) Each Senator is entitled to a total of one hour on the pending matter.
(b) The Senate will consider the matter for no more than 30 hours and vote on final disposition of the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res 20.
(c) This does not mean the Senate has passed or ended debate on the measure itself. It means that the Senate has ended debate on whether to make the Libya resolution the pending business for consideration.
(d) Given the possibility that the Senate will not be able to deal with the Libya resolution by unanimous consent, it is reasonable to expect another cloture motion. That motion, should it be made, would end the debate on Libya that tomorrow's vote would start.
We will have more updates on the schedule as events transpire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)